← 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 6 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Ifhs Steels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit

ITA 476/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 476/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2011-12) Ito-6(3)(1), 5Th Floor, Room No. 503, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S Ifhs Steels Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 4, 1St Floor, 193, Nagdevi Street, Mumbai-400003. Pan: Aaaci4775M ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] ' Dated 22.10.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Trading In Fasteners. On The Basis Of Information Received From The Sales Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

Government of Maharashtra, assessment for AY 2011-12 in the case of assessee was re-opened. As per the information received, the assessee obtained bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs. 14,92,892/- from various (twelve) dealers, declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department. During assessment proceedings ... filed by the assessee, no documentary evidence to substantiate trail of goods was furnished by the assessee. The AO made addition of the entire bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27.01.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Vijay Jewellers, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6167/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6167/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) Acit-19(3), Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S Vijay Jewellers 67, Kundamal Hosue, Hughes Road,Mumbai-400007. Pan: Aaafv3730A ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Devang Divecha सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 29/06/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 16.07.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is A Trader In Gold & Diamond Jewellery. The Assessment For Ay 2009-10 In The Case Of Assessee Was Re-Opened On The Ground That The Assessee Has Obtained

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: Sh. Devang Divecha
Section 143(3)Section 147

case of assessee was re-opened on the ground that the assessee has obtained आअसं. 6167/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 2,76,187/- from various (four) hawala dealers during the period relevant to the AY under appeal. Since, the assessee failed ... discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the dealers and the purchases made from them, the AO disallowed entire alleged bogus purchases. Against the assessment order dated 10.03.2014 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Dipakkumar S. Mehta, Surat

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

ITA 1503/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1503/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Shri Dipakkumar S. Mehta, Surat. Prop. Of Seema Impex, 401, 6/1582, Kumbhar Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afapm8151K (Revenue) (Assessee) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1461/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Deepak S. Mehta, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), C/O. 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Surat. Gujjar Falia, Mahidharpura, Surat-395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afapm8151K (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Himashu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

assessee. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in partially confirming the addition of impugned bogus purchases of Rs.80,17,790/- (being 12.50% of total alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 6,41,42,308/-) made by assessing officer ... that the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation entry operator has admitted before the Investigation Wing that he had given bogus purchase bills to many persons including the assessee. Based on this report, the ld. assessing officer had ‘reason to believe’ that income has escaped

Deepak S. Mehta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

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

ITA 1461/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1503/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Shri Dipakkumar S. Mehta, Surat. Prop. Of Seema Impex, 401, 6/1582, Kumbhar Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afapm8151K (Revenue) (Assessee) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1461/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Deepak S. Mehta, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), C/O. 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Surat. Gujjar Falia, Mahidharpura, Surat-395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afapm8151K (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Himashu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

assessee. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in partially confirming the addition of impugned bogus purchases of Rs.80,17,790/- (being 12.50% of total alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 6,41,42,308/-) made by assessing officer ... that the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation entry operator has admitted before the Investigation Wing that he had given bogus purchase bills to many persons including the assessee. Based on this report, the ld. assessing officer had ‘reason to believe’ that income has escaped

ACIT-26(2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Pushpa Madan Sharma, Mumbai

Accordingly, backed by our aforesaid deliberations we find no merit in the appeal of the revenue and dismiss the same. The Grounds of appeal A to G are dismissed

ITA 1526/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () & Asstt. Commissioner Of Smt. Pushpa Madan Income Tax- 26(2), Vs. Sharma, Row House No. Room No. 320, 3Rd Floor, 22, Grace Dieu Co.Op. Kautilya Bhawan, B.K.C., Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Near Bandra (E), Powai Garden, Powai, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 076 Pan No. Bcxps8613P (Revenue) (Assessee) Revenue By : Shreekala Pardeshi, (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [For Short „Cit(A)‟] Dated 18.12.2019 For A.Y 2010-11, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “Act”), Dated 08.03.2013 & Under Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Dated 11.02.2016. As Common Issues Are Involved In The Aforementioned Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Off By Way Of A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Which Finds

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shreekala Pardeshi, (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in restricting the disallowance of 15% of the total of bogus purchase transaction instead of 100% of the total amount of bogus purchase made by the AO for the A. Y. 2010-11?” B. “ Whether ... considering that the addition was made on the basis of information received from DIT(Inv.), Mumbai and Sales Tex Department, Maharashtra with regard to bogus purchase made by the assessee from dealers without supply of actual goods?” C. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case