← 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

Siddharth Structurals, Mumbai vs. ITO-29(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is Dismissed confirming the addition made by the Ld

ITA 4414/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4414/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) M/S. Siddharth Structurals The Income Tax Officer Ward-29(3)(4), 205, C-10, 307, Gala Commercial Complex, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Dr. Dindayal Upadhyay Marg, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400 080 Bandra (E)-400 051 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Abkfs5656B अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : Ms. Radha Halble, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-33, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-33/Rg.21/113/2015-16 Vide Dated 28.08.2017. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(3)(3) Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 09.03.2015 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) In Confirmed The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer By Applying Profit Rate At The Rate Of 12.5% Of The Alleged Bogus. For This Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground:-

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halble, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

learned CIT(A)-40, Mumbai has erred in upholding the adhoc addition of rs.10,68,861/- being 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases of ₹85,50,886/-, merely on surmises and conjectures.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of trading and whole selling of Iron ... addition of Rs.10,68,861/- on account of gross profit estimated at 12.5% on the sales made by the appellant out of alleged bogus purchases made from hawala parties amounting to Rs.85,50,886/- from the following parties enlisted as under: Name of party Amount Parshva

ITO 17 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dhaval & Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6428/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 17(1)(4) Vs. M/S. Dhaval & Room No. 115, 1St Company, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 19, 201, Nagdevi Mumbai – 400 020 Street, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai – 400 003. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafd1095L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bharat Andhale. Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Shah. Ar Date Of Hearing 30.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhale. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Shah. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

justified in restricting the addition made by the AO to 5% of Rs. 41,31,930/- against the addition made at 12.5% of the bogus purchases, ignoring that the Notice u/s 133(6), issued by AO to the alleged suppliers, M/s Dhavan & Company, Mumbai were returned un-served ... received the information from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai, that as per the sales tax department of Maharashtra, the assessee has indulged in bogus purchases transactions with six parties aggregating to Rs. 41,31,930/-. Therefore, the A.O has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and notice

ITO 22(2)(7), Mumbai vs. Pannalal Shyamnarayan Yadav, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 538/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 538/Mum/2020 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer, Pannalal Shyamnarayan Yadav 117, New Parsi Chawl, Next To Ward 22(2)(7) Gold Field Plaza, R.No.107, 1St Floor, Piramal Vs. Mumbai-400 017 Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Acfpm4777K अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : None स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.10.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Revenue Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-33, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A), Mumbai-33/10165/2015-16 Vide Dated 19.11.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(2)(5), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2009-10 Vide Dated 25.03.2015 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter „The Act‟). 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Restring The Disallowance Made By Ao Applying The Profit Rate At 12.5% Of The Bogus Purchase Instead Of 25%

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) restring the disallowance made by AO applying the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchase instead of 25% 2 Pannalal Shyamnarayan Yadav; AY 09-10 of the bogus purchases. For this, Revenue has raised the following ground ... returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para 6 by observing as under: - “6. I have carefully gone through the findings given in the assessment order and the written submissions

Shri. Shantilal J Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1288/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1288/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Shantilal J. Sanghavi Ito – 17(3)(3) बिाम/ Shop No. 17, Basement 25C, R. No.111A, Aaykar Bhavan Sonarika Bldg, Nanubhai Desai Road M. K. Marg, Vs. C. P. Tank, Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aqnps-6168-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dhawal Shah– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar– Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 08/07/2019 Which Has Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs.74,800/- U/S 271(1)(C) As Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Penalty Order Dated 21/03/2018. The Ld. Ar Submitted That Penalty Is Not Sustainable Since The Additions Are Estimated Additions. The Ld. Sr. Dr, On The Other Hand, Justified The Penalty On The Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Dhawal Shah– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar– Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

imposition of penalty are that in an assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 27/02/2015, the assessee was saddled with addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.24.64 Lacs. Upon further appeal, the quantum was estimated @10.12% of Rs.24.64 Lacs. Consequently, penalty of Rs.74,800/- was imposed. The penalty, upon

ACIT 26 (2), Mumbai vs. Mahesh Vasant Raut, Mumbai

Accordingly the grounds of appeal enumerated above at 2.1 to 2.5 are partly allowed

ITA 7051/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7051/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Mahesh Vasant Raut 6B/104, Chandivali Sunview Tax, Circle Chs Ltd., Mhada Colony, Room No. 510, 5Th Floor, C-10, Vs. Chandivali Andheri(E), Pratykshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400 072 Bandra-400 051 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Adppr2310E अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Revenue Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-38, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-38/Acit-26(2)/It.508/2015-16 Vide Dated 28.06.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-26(2) Mumbai (In Short Acit/ Ao) For The A.Ys. 2010-11 Vide Dated 21.01.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Restring The Disallowance Made By Ao Applying The Profit Rate At 25% Of The Bogus

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance to 25% of the total amount of bogus purchase transaction instead of 100% of the total amount of bogus purchases made by the AO.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that ... returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who restricted the disallowance to 25% of the bogus purchases by observing in para 7.6 by observing as under: - “7.3 As the parties could not be served with the notice u/s. 133(6) at the given address

ITO 24 (2)(3), Mumbai vs. Smt Ketki Bhavesh Ajmera, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7391/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7391/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 24(2)(3), Room No.609, Piramal Chambers, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Smt.Ketki Bhavesh Ajmera, 29C, 312, Manish Rose Chsl, J.P.Road, Manish Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai 400 053 Pan:Ablpa-9662-Q ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: None
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 has obtained bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs.1,73,97,000/- from following dealers, 2 declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. Name ... aforesaid dealers and purchases made from them during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal. The Assessing Officer estimated suppressed profit margin on bogus purchases @ 12.50% and made addition of Rs.21,74,625/-. Against the assessment order dated 28/10/2016 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income

ITO, Ward 3 (4), Thane vs. Sanjay Bhogilal Shah, Dombivali

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6763/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6763/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Thane, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan, Dist. Thane 421 301. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Sanjay Bhogilal Shah, Prop. Of M/S. Yash Raj Steel, C-312, Ganesh Darshan, Veer Savarkar Road, Nehru Road, Dombivli(E) Pan:Avzps-2981-G ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2021

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

case of assessee was reopened on the basis of 2 information received from DGIT(Investigation), Pune. As per information received, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs.3,18,276/- from Shradhha Trading Co.(Rs.1,63,302/-) and Sun Enterprises (Rs.1,55,974/-). Both the aforesaid parties were ... discharge his onus to prove genuineness of aforesaid dealers and purchases made from them. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire bogus purchases. Against the assessment order dated 13/02/2015 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the assessee field

ITO- 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Iron and Steel Traders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, being devoid of any merit

ITA 6373/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6373/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) Ito-17(2)(1), Room No. 115, Kautalya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S Iron & Steel Traders, 18, Steel Yard, Iron Market, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Aaafi0306B ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Dalpat Shah सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] ' Dated 15.07.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. Sh. Sajjay J. Sethi Representing The Department Submitted That The Assessee Has Obtained Accommodation Entries Aggregating To Rs. 2,45,113/-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: Sh. Dalpat Shah

from Mahendra Shantilal Patel, a bogus entry provider on commission basis. Thus, the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of the entire bogus purchases. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the entire addition. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that

Rajesh M Khandar (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO-26(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5911/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5911/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) Rajesh M Khandar (Huf), 108/9, Sion Devi Niwas Housing Society, Nex To Sies College, Sion(W), Mumbai 400 022 Pan: Aahhr-7993-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer – 26(2)(5), Room No.319, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Neha Paranjpe ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2021

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

toner, etc. The assessment for assessment year 2009-10 in the case of assessee was reopened on the ground that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs.2,54,22,355/- from various dealers, declared as hawala operators. To prove 2 genuineness of purchases the assessee submitted copies ... transactions with the aforesaid vendor works out to Rs.2,25,43,928/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.31,77,794/- in respect of bogus purchases by estimating suppressed profit margin @ 12.5%. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 20/03/2015, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) without