← 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

ACIT 26(3), Mumbai vs. Umakant Laxmidas Manania, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1217/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1217/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit-26(3) Ms. Vishakha U. Manania R. No. 332, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Umakant बिाम/ Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Laxmidas Manania) 131/6, 1St Floor, Mani Bhuvan Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Jain Society, Sion(W) Mumbai-400 037 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpm-0540-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad-Ld. Sr. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 27/11/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) On 30/12/2016. The Ground Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Ms. Usha Gaikwad-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya -Ld. AR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A

deleting the disallowance of purchases on G.P% basis and addition made thereof on estimation basis along with addition on estimated commission @ 2% of bogus purchase transaction for the A. Y. 2014-15? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in not considering that the addition was made on the basis of information received from DGIT(Inv.) with regard to bogus purchase made by the assessee from dealers without actual supply of goods? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Asst CIT 22(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jaydev Chemical Industries, Mumbai

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

ITA 1302/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalacit – 22(1) Vs. M/S Jaydev Chemical Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor Industries Piramal Chambers, 401, Om Apts, Dr. Mb Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 Raut Road, Shivaji 012. Park, Dadar Mumbai – 400 028. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfj1584C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Usha Gaikward, Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 07.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 13.09.2021 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)-33 Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Smt. Usha Gaikward, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) has erred in estimating addition on account of bogus purchase to 25% of such purchases as against the estimation by the AO of 53.22% of bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that the assessee ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) has erred in estimating addition on account of bogus purchase to 25% of such purchases as against the estimation by the AO of 52.22% of bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that the assessee could

Asst CIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Itd Cementation India Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 5313/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5313/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit – 14(2)(1) M/S Itd Cementation India Ltd. Room No. 474, 4Th Floor बिाम/ National Plastic Building, A-Subhash Road, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Paranjape B Scheme, Vile Parle(E), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1426-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra-Ld. Sr.Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): -

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra-Ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that out of the total bogus purchases of Rs.30,67,002/- only 12.5% of bogus purchase may be confirmed being profit element in bogus purchase while the assessee failed to substantiate ... aggrieved by deletion of certain disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) as well as by relief provided by Ld. CIT(A) on account of alleged bogus purchases. 3. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of material on record, our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given

Asst CIT 32 (2), Mumbai vs. Mangalsingh M Rathore, Mumbai

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

ITA 7/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.07/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Acit-32(2) Mangal Singh M. Rathore 720, 7Th Floor, Kautilya B-1, Neela Apt, Svp Road, Vs. Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Borivali (W), Mumbai- Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), 400092. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaipr6967M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -44 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Order To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.10,51,123/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its return of income thereby making himself liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A.Y.2010-11 2. On the facts and in the circumstances ... basis of the information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken the bogus purchase entry of Rs.28,029,936/- from the following parties.:- VAT Name of the Party Amount 27140326567V Saraogi Syndicate 11771134 27930114236V Karan Enterprises 2766877 27370565400V Sunrise Enterprises

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Futura Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 661/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.661/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dcit-1(1)(2) M/S. Futura Infraprojects Ltd. 3Rd 579, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 303, Floor, Rajendra Vs. Road, Mumbai-400020. Chambers, 19, Nanabhai Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf6879R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -02 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1."On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld, Cit(A) Erred Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 9.44% Of The Total Alleged Bogus Purchases From Hawala Dealers Added By The A.O By Ignoring The Fact That The Assesses Could Not Produce The Parties From Whom Purchases Were Made Thereby Failed To Discharge The Primary- A.Y.2010-11 Onus To Establish Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Purchase Transaction During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings" 2. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering That The Addition Was Made On The Basis Of Information Received From The Dit(Inv) & Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra With Regard To Bogus Purchase Made By The Assessee From Dealers Without Supply Of Actual Goods" 3. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering That The Hawala Dealers Have Admitted On Oath Before The Sales Tax Authorities That They Have Not Sold Any Material To Anybody".”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 30

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) erred restricting the addition to the extent of 9.44% of the total alleged bogus purchases from hawala dealers added by the A.O by ignoring the fact that the assesses could not produce the parties from whom purchases were made ... considering that the addition was made on the basis of information received from the DIT(Inv) and Sales tax Department, Maharashtra with regard to bogus purchase made by the assessee from dealers without supply of actual goods" 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ITO 23(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Anish Kantilal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 994/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 994/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito – 23(1)(6) Anish Kantilal Jain R. No. 203, 2Nd Floor Nimesh Medical Corporation, बिाम Earnest House, Nariman Point, R.No.7, Bangle House, 2/22, / Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Babu Genu Road, Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaapj-6238-M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Ms. Smita Varma– Ld. Sr. Dr Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 25/11/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 On 23/03/2015. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Granted Partial Relief To The Assessee On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Against Which The Revenue Is In Further Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Varma– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69C

Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 23/03/2015. The Ld. CIT(A) has granted partial relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. However, the material

Raju & Raju Electronics Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 1047/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1047/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Raju & Raju Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward-5(3)(1), R. No. 21, 3Rd Floor Dongre Building, 384, बिाम/ Dr. D. B. Marg, Lamington Road, B-Wing, Mittal Court, Vs. Mumbai-400 007 Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-6589-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Zakirhusen M. Kapasi, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Smita Varma– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10 Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 27/11/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 On 26/11/2014. The Sole Subject Matter Of Appeal Is Estimation Of Addition On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

For Appellant: Shri Zakirhusen M. Kapasi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Varma– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 26/11/2014. The sole subject matter of appeal is estimation of addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. Having heard rival submissions and after perusal of material on record, our adjudication would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. The assessee being

ITO 6(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Rajan Janardan Ghadge, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1041/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1041/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito – 6(2)(4) Shri Rajan Janardhan Ghadge 5Th Floor, R. No. 513 301, Shivai Plaza, Plot No. 79(A-3), बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan Marol Co-Op. Industrial Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Marol Naka, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalpg-1327-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Ms. Smita Varma– Ld. Sr. Dr Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Ay 2010-11 Arises Out Of The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 26/11/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 On 14/03/2016. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Granted Partial Relief To The Assessee On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Against Which The Revenue Is In Further Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Varma– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 14/03/2016. The Ld. CIT(A) has granted partial relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. However, the material

M/S Roshan Metal Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1005/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1005/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Roshan Metal Industries Ito-16(3)(4), 2Nd Floor, 2/4, Pushpa Sadan Matru Mandir,Tardeo Road, बिाम/ Vs. 2Nd Carpenter Street, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aajfr-3446-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Smita Varma– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7 Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 23/12/2018 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 On 12/08/2014. The Sole Subject Matter Of Appeal Is Estimation Of Addition On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. However, The Material On Record Was Sufficient For Disposal Of The Appeal. The Ld. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Varma– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 12/08/2014. The sole subject matter of appeal is estimation of addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. However, the material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal