← 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 23 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Kumar Balumal Rohra, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit

ITA 87/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 87/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं. 88/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2010-11) Ito-23(2)(2), Room No. 111, Matru Mandir, Piramal Chambers, Grant Road, Mumbai-400007. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Sh. Kumar Balumal Rohra, Flat No. B-2, 2Nd Floor, Marry Lodge, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Pan: Aabpr7678E ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: These Two Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As आअसं. 87 & 88/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

assessee obtained bogus bills from dealers, declared as hawala operators. During the period relevant to the AY 2009-10, the assessee had allegedly obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 12,27,897/- from seven such dealers. The assessee failed to prove genuineness of the dealers and the purchases made ... assessee under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] and made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 04.03.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before

ITO 33 (2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri. Mukesh Himmatlal Mistry, Mumbai

ITA 190/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 190/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2011-12) Ito-33(2)(3), Room No. 848, 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Mukesh Himmatlal Mistry, B/21, Krishna Krupa, Shankar Lane, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067. Pan: Aaopm3429P ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-45 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 24.10.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor. The Assessment For A.Y. 2011-12 In The Case Of Assessee Was Re-

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

basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra and DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai. As per the information received, the assessee has procured bogus purchase bills to the tune of Rs. 14,77,896/- from the following parties: (1) V.M. Udyog Rs. 7,57,756/- (2) Vardhman Traders ... Assessing Officer (AO) to prove genuineness of the dealers and the purchases made from them. Hence, the AO made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases. Against the assessment order dated 22.12.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

ITO-20(20)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Prakash Chandulla Vora, Mumbai

ITA 5901/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5901/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2010-11) Ito, 20(2)(5), Room No. 208, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. बनाम Vs. Shri. Prakash Chandulla Vora, Prop. Prakash Steel Enterprises 7, Kirti Kunj, K.A. Subramanian Road, King Circle, Mumbai-400019 ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Pan: Aaapv5344A अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 24.06.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading Of Iron & Steel. In The Course Of Re-Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Held That The Assessee Has Obtained

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

course of re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee has obtained आअसं. 5901/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2010-11) bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 6,44,358/- during the relevant period from following dealers, declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government ... failed to discharge his onus in proving genuineness of the aforesaid dealers and purchases made from them, the AO estimated suppressed profit margin on bogus purchase to 12.5% and made addition of Rs. 80,545/-. Against the assessment order dated 24.02.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section

M/S. Mac Dyechem Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5279/MUM/2019[2099-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2099-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 5279/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) M/S Mac Dyechem Industries, Plot No.D/24/7, Midc Ttc Industrial Area, Opp. Balmer Lawrie, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Aaefm6471D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-28(2)(2), Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi-400703. ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 5744/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito-28(2)(2), Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi-400703. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S Mac Dyechem Industries, Plot No.D/24/7, Midc Ttc Industrial Area, Opp. Balmer Lawrie, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Aaefm6471D ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 143(3)Section 147

chemicals. The assessment in the case of assessee for AY 2009-10 was re-opened for the reason that the assessee has allegedly obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 1,52,31,031/- during the period relevant to the AY under appeal. The assessee in order to prove genuineness ... more than industry GP. The ld. AR submitted that in light of documentary evidence furnished by the assessee the entire addition in respect of bogus purchases be deleted. The ld. AR further submitted that without prejudice to primary prayer the addition may be restricted to the extent of difference between

ITO 3 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Aapul Textiles and Industries Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 113/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 113/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2010-11) Ito 3(1)(1), Room No. 666, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. बनाम Vs. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant M/S Aapul Textiles & Industrial Pvt. Ltd. 29, Maker Arcade, Ground Floor, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaaca8135H ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 20/08/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 14.10.2019 For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11. 2. The Solitary Issue In The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Relief Granted By The First Appellate Authority In Respect Of Alleged Bogus

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

First Appellate authority in respect of alleged bogus आअसं. 113/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2010-11) purchases. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed 100% bogus purchases, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5%. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of carneting / processing of waste. In re-assessment proceedings ... held that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs. 16,93,253/- from three parties, stated to be hawala dealers identified by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. Since, the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving authenticity of the dealers and purchases made from