← All Phrases

“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), cited in 712 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus purchases

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT
316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court
460
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.
418 ITR 315 · 2019 · Supreme Court
408
citing judgments

Income tax additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements or allegations. The Revenue must bring on record sufficient material and allow the assessee to produce evidence to prove such additions.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT
216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court
325
citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar
54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court
279
citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

CIT v. Simit P. Seth
38 Taxmann.com 385 · 2013 · High Court
278
citing judgments

When an assessee obtains accommodation bills for purchases but the corresponding sales are genuine, the addition to income is limited to the gross profit margin embedded in such purchases. This principle acknowledges that the underlying sales were real, but profit was suppressed through bogus invoices.

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.
355 ITR 498 · 2013 · High Court
252
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6649/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,42,517/- ignoring the fact that commission paid on bogus purchases was also bogus. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by deleting the addition/disallowance ... facts of the case, the appeal of the revenue on this ground is being dismissed. In ITA Nos. 6649 & 6650/Del/2017 Disallowance on account of Bogus Purchase: 9. The assessee purchased the diamonds amounting to Rs.60,52,691/- through commission agent from various parties and paid the entire amount through proper

ITO- 22(3)(6), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tawade Engineeirng Works, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1168/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1168/मुं/2020 ("न.व 2010-11) Ito-22(3)(6), 117, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lal Baugh, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Tawade Engineering Works, 542, Madhani Estate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028. Pan: Aaaft-5847-C ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from DGIT(Investigation), Mumbai. As per the information received, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to 2 Rs.8,86,777/- from various (eight) dealers engaged in providing accommodation entries. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice ... addition on merits. The CIT(A) after examining the facts upheld the findings of Assessing Officer to the extent that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills from hawala operators, however, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance on bogus purchases to Rs.1,77,355/- by estimating suppressed profit margin

ITO 32(1)(2), Mumbai vs. C S Sharma & Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1120/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1120/मुं/2020 ("न.व 2011-12) Income Tax Officer -32(1)(2), Room No.704, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),Mumbai 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. C.S.Sharma & Co., 503, 5Th Floor, Pratik Prashant Chs, Holy Cross Road, Ic Colony, Borivli (We), Mumbai 400 103 Pan:Aacfc-6510-B ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Smita Verma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Subramanian, Advocate सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2021 आदेश/ Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-46, Mumbai [ In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] Dated 01/11/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Solitary Issued Raised In This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against Relief Granted By The Cit(A) In Respect Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Made By The Assessee. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction, Weather Proofing, Structural Rehabilitation

For Appellant: Ms. Smita VermaFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

solitary issued raised in this appeal by the Revenue is against relief granted by the CIT(A) in respect of alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is engaged in the business of construction, weather proofing, structural ... assessment for Assessment Year 2011-12 in the case of assessee was reopened on the ground that that assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs.27,09,645/- from the parties engaged in providing bogus bills. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer issued notice

Zeenat Mohdkhalil Ansari, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1064/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1064/मुं/2020 ("न.व 2012-13) Zeenat Mohdkhalil Ansari, C/O. Mr. Rajkumar Jaju, E/302 Ashok Nagar, Vazira Naka, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 091 Pan: Adapa-2934-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito 21(3)(5), Room No.117, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012. Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2021

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 143(3)

year 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.3,51,350/-. In 2 scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has made bogus purchases amounting to Rs.35,13,988/- from the following parties: S.No. Name of the party Amount(Rs.) 1. Pack Well 1,28,036 2. Shree ... various documents to substantiate genuineness of the purchases/ expenses, however, the Assessing Officer rejected the same and made disallowance of 25% of the alleged bogus purchases and the amount paid by the assessee to AQD Garments in respect of clearing and forwarding expenses and labour charges. Thus, the Assessing Officer