← 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

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Atul Kailashchandra Mehta, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

ITA 107/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.106/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, Ward-2(3(8), Surat. 6/1862-63, 3Rd Floor, Office S. No.305, Ghanshyam Bhuvan, Bal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bcsps 0173 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.107/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Atul Kailashchandra Mehta, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. S. 7/2496, Office No.2, Shastru Chambers, Maznine Floor, Chandulal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alxpm 7834 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya - Ca Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya - CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 144

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred deleting the addition of Rs. 3,99,61,340/- made on account of bogus purchase. ii) On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment order passed ... which the assessee made the said purchases amounting to Rs. 3,99,61,340/-, were non-existent entities and they were used for providing bogus purchase bills to the assessee. The entire modus operandi of such bogus transactions was accepted in statement

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Shri Mukesh Mahavir Prasad Sen, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

ITA 106/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.106/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, Ward-2(3(8), Surat. 6/1862-63, 3Rd Floor, Office S. No.305, Ghanshyam Bhuvan, Bal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bcsps 0173 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.107/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Atul Kailashchandra Mehta, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. S. 7/2496, Office No.2, Shastru Chambers, Maznine Floor, Chandulal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alxpm 7834 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya - Ca Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya - CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 144

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred deleting the addition of Rs. 3,99,61,340/- made on account of bogus purchase. ii) On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment order passed ... which the assessee made the said purchases amounting to Rs. 3,99,61,340/-, were non-existent entities and they were used for providing bogus purchase bills to the assessee. The entire modus operandi of such bogus transactions was accepted in statement

ITO 15 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S S K Mechanical & Electrical Works Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 485/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 485/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2010-11) Ito-15(3)(3), Room No. 452, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S S.K. Mechenical & Electrical Works Pvt. Ltd. Nahurgaon, Mulund West, Mumbai-400078. Pan: Aaics8894F ..... "ि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 : 20/09/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 23.10.2019 For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee/Respondent Is In The Business Of Undertaking Mechanical Works. The Assessment For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 In The Case Of Assessee Was Re-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: None
Section 144Section 147

case of assessee was re- आअसं. 485/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2010-11 ) opened on the ground that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from various (six) hawala dealers during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal. During assessment proceedings, there was no representation from assessee ... after examining the facts and documents on record granted part relief to the assessee by restricting disallowance to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. Now, the Revenue is in appeal against the relief granted by the CIT(A). 3. Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment

DCIT -12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kavis Fashions P. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1670/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit-12(3)(1), M/S Kavis Fashions Room No. 128G, Vs. Private Limited, 1St Floor, Aayakr Bhavan, Plot No. 87, Saki Vihar M.K. Road, Road, Powai, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400072 Pan No. Aaack9496R (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shree Neeraj Kumar, (Dr) Revenue By : None Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [For Short „Cit(A)‟], Dated 26.02.2020, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 27.08.2015 For A.Y 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Directing To Restrict The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Tax Related To 5% Of The Bogus Purchases Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Itat

For Appellant: Shree Neeraj Kumar, (DR)For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

restrict the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the tax related to 5% of the bogus purchases relying on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT ITA No.1670/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2009-10 2 M/s Kavis Fashions Pvt. Ltd.. Vs. DCIT ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance on account of bogus purchases at 5% of Rs. 1,59,93,485/as against 12.5% made by the AO without appreciating the fact that assessee failed to establish the genuineness

ITO 12(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kemex International Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, on the same terms the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1213/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () & Ito- 12(3)(2), M/S Kemex Room No. 145, Vs. International Private 1St Floor, Aayakar Limited, Bhavan, M.K. Road, B-7, Bonanza Indl. Mumbai – 400 020 Estate, Ashok Chakravarti Road, Kandivali (E), Mumbai – 400 102 Pan No.Aabck3717E (Revenue) (Assessee) Revenue By : Shri. Neeraj Kumar, D.R Assessee By : Shri. Kirit Sanghvi , A.R Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 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)-20, Mumbai [For Short „Cit(A)‟], Dated 14.11.2019, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Assessment Orders Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟), Dated 30.11.2017 For A.Y 2010-11 & A.Y 2011-12. Ita No. 1213 &1214/Mum/2020 A.Y2010-11 & 2011-12 2 Ito Vs. M/S Kemex International Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri. Kirit Sanghvi , A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Neeraj Kumar, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

erred in restricting the addition by retying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and restricted the disallowance on account of bogus purchases at 12.8% of Rs.1,86,75,300/as against 25% made by the AO without appreciating the fact that assessee failed to establish the genuineness ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in restricting the addition to 12.5% of bogus purchases without taking into consideration the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s N.K. Proteins

ITO Ward 1 (5), Kalyan vs. Vidhata Foods Pvt Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and C

ITA 412/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 412/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito Ward-2(5), 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (West)-421301. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S Vidhata Foods Pvt. Ltd. A/B-5, Mahaveer Compound, Bhiwandi, Thane-421302. Pan: Aaacv9398K ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent सी.ओ.सं.67/मुं/2021 (िन.व.2009-10) C.O. No.67/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Vidhata Foods Pvt. Ltd. A/B-5, Mahaveer Compound, Bhiwandi, Thane-421302. Pan: Aaacv9398K .....अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito Ward-2(5), 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (West)-421301. ......"ितवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Ajay Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee was re-opened on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee has allegedly obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 29,24,289/- from M/s. Shivam Trading Company, a declared hawala operator. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing ... accepted the sales declared by the assessee, the books of accounts were also not rejected by the AO, yet the AO disallowed entire alleged bogus purchase made from M/s Shivam Trading Company. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order dated 12.03.2014 passed under section 143(3) read with section

M/S Prime Steel Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid directions

ITA 6069/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6069/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S Prime Corporation Office No.6, Ground Floor, 32, Parekh House, Old Kashinath Bldg. 7Th Khetwadi, Mumbai-400004. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaefp2796C बनाम Vs. Ito-19(2)(5) Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007. ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Mahendra Sanghvi "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/09/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 10/07/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Inter Alia Assailed Re-Opening Of Assessment, As Well As, Addition On Merits.

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra SanghviFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 234B

outset that he is not pressing ground No.1 assailing re-opening of assessment. In respect to Ground No.2 assailing addition on account of bogus purchases, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee (AR) submitted that the assessee is engaged in trading of Ferrous and Non-ferrous metals. During re-assessment ... proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 1,30,40,292/- from hawala operators. The AO made addition of Rs. 16,30,036/- by estimating suppressed margin on alleged bogus purchase at 12.5%. The assessee carried the issue in appeal