← 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

M/S Superflo Filters Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11 (2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1772/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1772/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Superflo Filters Pvt. बिधम/ Ito-11(2)(4) Ltd. Room No.349/477, Aayakar Vs. B-5, 103/104, Greenland Co. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Op. Soc, Shrinivas Bagarka Mumbai-400020. Road, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs4955N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh (Ar) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.01.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Erred In Passing The Order Dated 28.01.2019 Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By Income Tax Officer, Ward — 11(2)(4), Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld. Ao’ Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

assessee was reopened on the basis of the letter of DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken the bogus purchases entries of Rs.1,36,19,291/- from the following seven parties as under.:- Name of Hawala dealer PAN No. of the Hawala dealer ... No.1772/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 After the reply of the assessee, the AO raised the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.1,36,19,291/-. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,67,57,305/-. Feeling aggrieved

ITO 20(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Ashok B Bagwe, Mumbai

ITA 7763/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7763/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) आअसं. 7764/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) Income Tax Officer -20(1)(2) Room No.119, 1St Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel,Mumbai 400 012 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Ashok A. Bagwe, 12, Wadala Udyog Bhavan, Naigaon Cross Road, Wadala, Mumbai 400 013. Pan:Aaapb-9671-Q ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Rohra सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Rohra

assessee was reopened on the basis of information received Director General of Income Tax(Investigation). As per the information received, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs.8,48,803/- in F.Y. 2008-09 from the following operators declared as hawala dealers by the Sales Tax Department, Government ... transport bills, delivery challans, etc. were produced by the assessee to prove trail of goods. The Assessing Officer concluded that assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills and made addition of the entire unproved purchases i.e. Rs.8,48,803/-. Against the assessment order dated 10/03/2014, the assessee filed appeal before

M/S. Fdc Limited, Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT- 8 (1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 6901/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6901/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6840/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Fdc Limited Acit Circle– 8(1) बिाम/ 142-48, S. V. Road {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} Jogeshwari (West) R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai – 400 102 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7016/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Circle– 8(1) M/S Fdc Limited बिाम/ {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} 142-48, S. V. Road R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Jogeshwari (West) Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 102 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri S. S. Nagar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande, Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

power to do so and thus said direction may be set-aside and balance publicity expenses may be allowed. DISALLOWANCE OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE 17) The Ld CIT(A) erred in disallowing alleged bogus purchases of Rs.65,56,421/- without appreciating that purchases were genuine and purchases of articles were ... Roha & Goa Unit-III R & D Units 14. to 16. Disallowance of Publicity Expenses 17. & 17.1 Addition on account of alleged bogus purchases 18. & 19. Allocation of Corporate Expenses to 80IB / 80IC units 20. & 22. Deduction u/s 80IB /80IC on scrap sales & allocation of certain R & D Expenses 23. General