← 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

Haresh Udaychandji Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6454/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6454/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2010-11) Haresh Udaychandji Jain 1St Floor, Room No. 117, Tiranga Building, 2Nd Floor, Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008. Pan: Agzpj8790K ...... अपीलाथ' /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Ward-20(1)(2) 6Th Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. ..... (ितवाद*/Respondent अपीलाथ' +ारा/ Appellant By : None (ितवाद* +ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smita Verma सुनवाई क, ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2021 घोषणा क, ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/07/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 29.07.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. The Brief Facts Of Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Trader In Steel. In Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Observed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

trader in steel. In assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed आअसं. 6454/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2010-11) that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 29,63,955/- from five dealers, declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra ... form of lorry receipts, stock register, octry receipts, etc. to prove trail of goods. The AO made estimated addition of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchase. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 19.02.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before

ACIT -12 (3) (2), Mumbai vs. Life Cycle Infotech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6336/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 6336/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2009-10) The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Life Cycle Infotech Pvt. Income Tax, Circle 12(3)(2), Ltd. 1 St Room No.128H, Floor, 609, Inizio, Opp. P.G. Gala फनाभ/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd, Chaka, Chakala, Andheri- Mumbai-400 020 Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Vs. Mumbai-400 093 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aabcl0572C अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-20, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], Dated 13.06.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward-12(3)(2), Mumbai (In Short Dcit/Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 20.03.2015 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). The Penalty Was Levied By The Dcit 12(3)(2) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 31.03.2018. M/S Life Cycle Infotech Pvt. Ltd.; Ay 09-10 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income In Respect To The Claims Of Assessee On Bogus Purchases On Which Depreciation As Claimed. For This, Revenue Has Raised Various Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect to the claims of assessee on bogus purchases on which depreciation as claimed. For this, Revenue has raised various grounds. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that ... 3/2018 (supra) would also take within its realm a penalty imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) w.r.t the additions made by the A.O towards bogus purchases on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, i.e an external agency. Accordingly, finding M/s Life Cycle Infotech

ITO 12 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lab Device India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6276/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 6276/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer-12(3)(3) M/S Lab Device India Pvt. 2N D Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Ltd. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Shop No.112, Plot No.39, 1S T Floor Atlanta Estate, फनाभ/ Hanuman Tekdi Road, Oppw.E. Highway, Vs. Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aabcl0636K अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kothari, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-20, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], Dated 17.06.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The M/S Lab Device India Pvt. Ltd.; Ay 09-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(3), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 16.03.2015 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). The Penalty Was Levied By The Ito 12(3)(3) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 31.03.2018. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income In Respect To The Claims Of Assessee On Bogus Purchases On Which Depreciation As Claimed. For This, Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Brajendra Kumar, DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kothari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect to the claims of assessee on bogus purchases on which depreciation as claimed. For this, Revenue has raised the following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.87,716/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its Return of Income and thus furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 27 l( 1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances

Income Tax Officer 12(1) |(1), Mumbai vs. Ami Riddhi Chem. Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 5748/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.5748 To 5750/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Ami Riddhi Chem Pvt. Room No.226, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Office No.3, Gikul Apartments, Road, Mumbai-400020. Haridas Nagar, Shimpoli Road, Borivali West, Mumbai- 400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca7111H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Ajay Singh (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/06/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 22.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.8,76,981/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its Return of Income and thus furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961". 2. "On the facts and circumstances ... reopened on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department in which it was conveyed that the assessee had claimed the bogus purchases in sum of Rs.3,56,01,590/-. Notice u/s 147/148 of the Act A.Y.2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 was given to the assessee. Subsequently, notices

ITO 28 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S Yusuf Ahmed Solanki, Mumbai

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

ITA 7298/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7298/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-28(3)(5) बिधम/ Yusuf Ahmed Solanki Room No.323, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Proprietor Of M/S. Sayco Vs. Tower, Vashi Railway Station Enterprises 54, Sector 1A, Complex, Vashi-400703. Timber Mart, Kopar Khairene, Navi Mumbai- 400709. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aerps1196J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.09.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

levied u/s. 271(1)(c of the Act as the penalty was levied on quantum additions made on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating that the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of such purchases by producing such ITA Nos. 7298/M/2019 A.Y.2010-11 parties before the Assessing Officer ... levied penalty, only after verifying the fact that the assessee evaded the taxes on quantum of additions made on account of bogus purchases and the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of such purchases"? (3) "Whether on the facts that in the circumstances of the case

DCIT 11(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Siddharth Praful Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 6417/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6417/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit-11(2)(2) बिधम/ Siddharth Praful Mehta Room No.421, 4Th Floor, 167/2, Vishal Villa, Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. No.5, Shivaji Park, Mahim Road, Mumbai-400020. (W), Mumbai-400016. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aexpm2847Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 10.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi (DR)
Section 143(1)

fact that the Ld. CIT(A) A.Y.2008-09 himself has acknowledged the impugned order that the assessee has availed accommodation entries in relation with bogus purchases from all the five parties?" 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified ... Mumbai in ITA No. 3874, 3875, 3876/Mum/2015 & 7120/Mum12016 dated 10 04.2019 has upheld the decision of Assessing Officer making 100% addition towards bogus purchases while relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NK Protiens Limited (Supra)?" 6. "Without prejudice to the above, whether