← 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

ITO-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Bhagchand Jain, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 264/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.263 & 264/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15&2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, Bhagchand Jain (Huf) Ward-2(3)(7), Rom No.414, 4Th 507, Milennium Trade Centre, Thoba Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003 Floor, Anvil Business Centre, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं. Adajan-Hajira Road, Adajan, /Pan/Gir No.: Aaghb 1271 G Surat-395009 Bhagchand Jain (Indl.) The Income Tax Officer, V 507, Milennium Trade Centre, Thoba Ward-2(3)(7), Rom No.414, 4Th S. Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003 Floor, Anvil Business Centre, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/G Adajan-Hajira Road, Adajan, Ir No.: Abbpj 5197 P Surat-395009

For Appellant: Shri Himangshu Gandhi - CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

erred in restricting the addition made by the AO of Rs.4,19,00,541/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns ... facts, assessing officer has rejected the books of accounts of assessee under section 145(2) of the Act and made additions in respect of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.4,19,00,541/-, under section 69C of the Act 6.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee

ITO-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Bhagchand Jain (HUF), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 263/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.263 & 264/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15&2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, Bhagchand Jain (Huf) Ward-2(3)(7), Rom No.414, 4Th 507, Milennium Trade Centre, Thoba Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003 Floor, Anvil Business Centre, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं. Adajan-Hajira Road, Adajan, /Pan/Gir No.: Aaghb 1271 G Surat-395009 Bhagchand Jain (Indl.) The Income Tax Officer, V 507, Milennium Trade Centre, Thoba Ward-2(3)(7), Rom No.414, 4Th S. Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003 Floor, Anvil Business Centre, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/G Adajan-Hajira Road, Adajan, Ir No.: Abbpj 5197 P Surat-395009

For Appellant: Shri Himangshu Gandhi - CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

erred in restricting the addition made by the AO of Rs.4,19,00,541/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns ... facts, assessing officer has rejected the books of accounts of assessee under section 145(2) of the Act and made additions in respect of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.4,19,00,541/-, under section 69C of the Act 6.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee