← 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 32 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Deora Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 108/Mum/2020 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/S Deora Enterprises Ward 32(1)(4) 401-402, Narbada Niwas Room No. 706, 7 Th Floor, Kautilya R.C. Patel Road, फनाभ/ Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Chandavarkar Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Borivali West, Vs. Mumbai-400 092 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaafd1878R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 20.07.21 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.21

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhle, CIT DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 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 following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting ... Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of ₹ 89,341/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its Return of Income thereby making himself liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” ITA Nos.108/Mum/2020 M/s Deora

Himalaya Plywood, Mumbai vs. ITO 22 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee for AY 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 7996/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 7996/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2008-09) आअसं. 7997/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) आअसं. 7998/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं. 7999/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) M/S Himalaya Plywood Shop No.11, Gold Coin Apartments, Vakola Pipe Line, Nehru Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400054. Pan: Aabfh1856Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-22(1)(5), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai--400012. ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 143(3)Section 147

involvement in obtaining accommodation entries from hawala operators. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 28,76,102/- from following four dealers, declared as hawala operators: Name of the Party Amount Nikhil Enterprises ... A.Y.2008-09 to 2011-12) Senior Corporation 2,67,449/- Total 28,76,102/- The AO after examining the facts made disallowance of 25% of bogus purchases and made addition of Rs. 7,19,026/-. Against the assessment order dated 28.03.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section

M/S Abhishek Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7824/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7824/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2007-08) M/S Abhishek Exports, Ito-19(1)(1), 2 Pratik Arcade, Sopariwala Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Estate, Tata Road No.2, Lines, M.K. Road, बनाम Opera House, Mumbai-400020. /Vs. Mumbai-400004 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ("ितवाद" /Respondent) Pan No. Aaefa6855H अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2021 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.09.2019 For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2007-08. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From The Records Are: The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading/Export Of Diamonds. The Assessment For Ay 2007-08 In The Case Of Assessee Was Re-Opened On The Ground That The Assessee Has Obtained Accommodation Entries Amounting To Rs. 29,99,973/- From Daksh Diamonds, A Concern Belonging To Bhanwarlal Jain Group. During Assessment

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 143(3)Section 147

onus in proving genuineness of the dealer and the purchases made from the said dealer. Consequently, the AO made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order dated 27.03.2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, challenging validity ... passed without affording opportunity of hearing, (2) Re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act, and (3) Addition confirmed on account of bogus purchases. 4. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) has issued notices to the assessee

ACIT 12(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Die Plast Pvt Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 5815/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

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.5815/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit 12(2)(1), M/S Die Plast Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ R. No. 128E, Ff, Aaykar Bhavan, 251, Guru Govind Singh Indl. Estate Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Goregaon East,Mumbai-400 062 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-2925-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, Ld. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

levied by Ld. AO vide penalty order dated 31/03/2018 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was levied against estimated addition of bogus purchases and rejection of claim of loss on fixed assets. Though none appeared for assessee, however, the material on record was sufficient enough for disposal ... Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the penalty has been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) since the addition of bogus purchases was purely on estimation basis. However, the penalty on rejection of claim of loss on fixed assets was confirmed. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further

Bhanwarlal M. Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2669/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.2669/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 2. To 8. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.108 To 114/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Bhanwarlal M. Jain Dcit-Central Circle-1(3) 171, 17Th Floor Old Cgo Bldg. 9Th Floor, Room No.905 बिाम/ Silver Arch Building Patit Hall Compound Pratishtha Bhavan Vs. Napean Sea Road Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 006. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aafpj-1924-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 9. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3509/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 10. To 16. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.98 To 104/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Dcit-Central Circle-1(3) Bhanwarlal M. Jain 171, 17Th Floor Old Cgo Bldg. 9Th Floor, Room No.905 बिाम/ Silver Arch Building Pratishtha Bhavan Patit Hall Compound Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Napean Sea Road Mumbai-400 006. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aafpj-1924-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, Shri Fenil Bhatt & Shri Suchek Anchaliya-Ld.Ars Revenue By : Shri P.C. Chhotaray-Ld. Spl. Counsel

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray-Ld. Spl
Section 143(3)Section 153A

various employees and associates. Through these entities, the assessee group imported diamond on behalf of others and provided accommodation entries of unsecured loans, bogus purchase to various beneficiaries. The attention was drawn to numerous loose papers (referred to as ‘estimate sheets’) containing hand written accounts as found during search operations ... importers. The imported goods were handed over to the real importers against cash. The fictitious stock standing in the books was transferred by issuing bogus purchase bills against receipt of cheque / RTGS. This cheque transaction would be reflected in the regular books. The cheque / RTGS would be used to make