← 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

Income Tax Officer 32 (3) (1), Mumbai vs. Ramrekha Shukla, Mumbai

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

ITA 5805/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5805/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-32(3)(1) बिधम/ Ramrekha Shukla Room No.733, 7Th Floor, A/204, Riddhi Co. Operative Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Hsg. Ltd, Sai Baba Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai- Borivali (W), Mumbai- 400051. 400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aggpd6265J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Saboo सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(I) "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Restricting The Addition To 5% On Account Of Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Sales Tax Department Has Proved Beyond Doubt That The Parties Declared As Hawala Traders Were Involved In Providing Accommodation Entry Of Purchases

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh SabooFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to 5% on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that the Sales Tax Department has proved beyond doubt that the parties declared as hawala traders were involved in providing accommodation entry ... ratio of the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. wherein it was confirmed that in the event of bogus purchases, the addition on the whole of such purchases was required to be made and this particular ratio was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Income Tax Officer 32 (1) (2), Mumbai vs. C S Sharma & Company, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5787/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5787/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito-32(1)(2), Room No. 704, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ...... अपीलाथ' /Appellant बनाम Vs. C.S. Sharma & Co. 503, 5Th Floor, Pratik Prashant Chs, Holy Cross Road, I.C. Colony, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400103. Pan: Aacfc6510B ..... (ितवाद*/Respondent अपीलाथ' +ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Smita Verma (ितवाद* +ारा/Respondent By : Sh. M. Subramanian, Advocate सुनवाई क, ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2021 घोषणा क, ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As आअसं. 5787/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 21.05.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. The Solitary Issue Raised By The Revenue In Appeal Is Against The Relief Granted By The Cit(A) In Restricting Addition To 12.5% On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

For Appellant: Ms. Smita VermaFor Respondent: Sh. M. Subramanian, Advocate
Section 133(6)

raised by the Revenue in appeal is against the relief granted by the CIT(A) in restricting addition to 12.5% on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. Shri M. Subramanian appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a civil contractor and is primarily working ... assessment proceedings, the AO held that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 14,52,015/- from hawala dealers. The assessee produced various document viz. copies of purchase bills, copies of bank statements, etc. to prove genuineness of the purchases. However, the AO made addition

ITO, W-27(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri Pratik M. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and C

ITA 5783/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5783/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito, Ward-27(2)(5), Shri Pratik M. Mehta, Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, 35-B, Sindhu Baugh, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Tilak Road, Ghatkopar (East), बनाम Station Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400077 /Vs. Navi Mumbai-400703. (अपीलाथ' /Appellant) ((ितवाद* /Respondent) Pan No. Aahpm4344E सी.ओ.सं.40/मुं/2021 (िन.व.2009-10) C.O. No.40/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2009-10) Shri Pratik M. Mehta, Ito, Ward-27(2)(5), Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, 35-B, Sindhu Baugh, Tilak Road, Ghatkopar Tower No.6, Vashi Railway बनाम (East), Mumbai-400077 Station Complex, Vashi, /Vs. Navi Mumbai-400703. (अपीलाथ' /Appellant) ((ितवाद* /Respondent) Pan No. Aahpm4344E अपीलाथ' ,ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Smita Verma, Dr (ितवाद* ,ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Paras Savla, Ar सुनवाई क- ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2021 घोषणा क- ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2021

For Appellant: Ms. Smita Verma, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Paras Savla, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], the AO held that the assessee has made bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 18,70,395/- from following parties: Sr No. Name of the party Amount 1 N B Enterprises ... failed to discharge his onus in proving genuineness of the dealers and the purchases made from them, the AO made addition of entire alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after examining the facts of case

ITO, W-27(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Krishnakant Tulsidas Mehta (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5746/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5746/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) Ito,Ward-27(2)(1), Room No.413, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Krishnakant Tulsidas Mehta(Huf), 6, Kanji Mistry Rambhuvan, Tilak Road, Ghatkopar (East) Mumbai 400 077 Pan: Aaahk-4555Q ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Smita Verma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Smita VermaFor Respondent: None

chemicals. The assessment in the case of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 was reopened on the ground that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.4,57,100/- from M/s. Giriraj Enterprises during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal. During assessment proceedings the assessee ... could neither prove genuineness of the 2 dealers nor purchases made from the said dealer. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of entire bogus purchases. In first appellate proceedings the CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.57,137/- by estimating profit at 12.5% on bogus purchases. The ld.Departmental Representative placing

ITO-20(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mukesh Kumar Kishoremal Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5743/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5743/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) Ito-20(2)(1), Room No.216, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Mukeshkumar Kishoremal Doshi, 212, Shaymsunder Co-Op Hs. Society No.3, 2Nd Floor, K.K.Marg Mumbai 400 018. Pan: Aacpd-1669-C ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms.Smita Verma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2021 आदेश/ Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-32, Mumbai [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 12/06/2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Ms. Smita Verma Representing The Department Submitted That The Assessee Is A Dealer In Aluminium Extrusions & Glass. The Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Reopened On The Ground That The Assessee Has Obtained Bogus Purchase Bills Amounting To Rs.1,02,19,926/- From Six Hawala Dealers During The Period Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Appeal. During Assessment Proceedings The Assessee

For Appellant: Ms.Smita VermaFor Respondent: None

Glass. The assessment in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 was reopened on the ground that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.1,02,19,926/- from six hawala dealers during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal. During assessment proceedings ... dealers nor purchases made from them. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.12,77,491/- by estimating profit margin of 12.5% on bogus purchases. In first appellate proceedings the CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.5,10,996/- by estimating profit at 5% of the bogus purchases. The ld.Departmental