← 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

Jalpesh Vinay Kumar Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 174/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

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.174/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2.आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.172/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3.आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.173/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jalpesh Vinay Kumar Shah Ito – 23(2)(3), 124, 1St Floor 1401, Sugee Heights बिाम/ Dwarkesh Nagar Chs Ltd. Matru Mandir Vs. Nahur Road, Mulund (West) Tardev Road Mumbai-400 080 Mumbai-400 007 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaops-0207-M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 4.आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 6564/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5.आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 6565/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6.आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 6566/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito Ward – 26(1)(7), Jalpesh Vinay Kumar Shah Room No. 329, 3Rd Floor 1401, Sugee Heights बिाम/ Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Dwarkesh Nagar Chs Ltd. Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex (East) Nahur Road, Mulund (West) Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 080 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaops-0207-M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Aditya- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

sole issue in aforesaid cross-appeals for Assessment Years (AY) 2009-10 to 2011-12 is estimated addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. Facts as well as issues are pari-materia the same in all the three years and it is admitted position that adjudication in any one year

Dy. CIT 10 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Priority Jewels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6258/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 6258/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 6259/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Priority Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 7 Plot No. 121, Street No. 2Nd Circle-10(3)(2), Floor, 15/18, Midc, Marol, Vs. Room No. 509, Aayakar Andheri (East), Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 093 Churchgate, Mumbai-20 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaecp4118K अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : None स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147

common issue in these two appeals of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) restricting the disallowance of addition made on account of bogus purchases by estimating the profit rate of 12.5%. The issue is common in both the years and facts are identical, hence, we will take ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made on account of bogus purchase for ₹7,02,290/- by the Assessing Officer, at ₹5,48,665/- being 12.5% of bogus purchases. 2. On the facts and circumstances

ITO-25(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Babulal Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, All the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5629/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 5629/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 5630/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2010-11) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 5631/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer, Sunil Babulal Doshi, Ward 25(3)(4), Room No. 236, 2 Nd 10, Hari Vijay Society, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Bhagat Singh Road, Vile फनाभ/ Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 Mumbai-400 051 Vs. (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aggpd4879C अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Khalsa, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2021

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Khalsa, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty on estimated income in regard to estimation of profit on bogus purchases. For this, Revenue has raised the identically worded grounds in all the three years and the quantum involved in ITA No.5629/Mum/2019 ... which were assessed at ₹53,35,660/- ₹ 2,93,11,510 and ₹3,97,22170/- respectively. The Assessing Officer made total disallowance for bogus purchases at the rate of 100% of the bogus purchases. Aggrieved preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who partly confirmed the appeal by reducing the disallowance

Subhash Vital Kanekar, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 28(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 5642/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

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.5642/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Subhash Vithal Kanekar Dcit-28(3) 3Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, बिाम Plot No. A-106, Ttc Industrial Area, Khairane Midc, Thane Belapur Road Railway Station Complex, / Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 710 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Adopk-3710-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad– Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 26/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

26/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of certain addition of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.14.66 Lacs for Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s