← 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

ACIT -Circle 32(3), Mumbai vs. Vinay Unique Construction Co., Mumbai

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

ITA 6431/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6431/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit- Circle-32(3) बिधम/ M/S. Vinay Unique Room No.732, 7Th Floor, Construction Co. Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, A-8, Om Mahaeshwar Bandra (E), Mumbai- Niketan, Harsha Park, 400051. Chandavarkar Road, Borivali West, Mumbai- 400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Cdops6602K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Of Rs.3,25,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Claimed Bogus Purchases In Its Return Of

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 690Section 69C

Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs.3,25,000/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its Return of ITA. No. 6431/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Income thereby making himself liable for Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961". 2. "On the facts ... assessment, the AO has made addition of Rs.49,18,527/- u/s 40(a)(ia) and u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchase. Thereafter, the penalty order was passed on 27.03.2017 in view of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO levied the penalty

ACIT-22(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajesh H Sharma, Mumbai

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

ITA 5929/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5929/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit-22(3) बिधम/ Shri Rajesh H. Sharma 305, 3Rd Floor Piramal B-5, West View, 5. V. Road, Vs. Chambers, Lal Baug, Parel, Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400012. 400054. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps4578L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhle (Sr.Ar) Assessee By: Shri Avinash Ravani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/06/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Restricting The Addition @ 12.5% Of Bogus Purchases As Against 100% Made By The Assessing Officer Misinterpreting The Judgement In The Case Of M/S Simit P Seth 656 Itr 461(Guj) & Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Completely Tailed In Substantiating The Purchases Made From Hawala Parties & Ac Rightly A.Y.2010-11 Applied The Ratio Of The Judgment In The Case Of M/S Vijay Proteins Ltd. (1996 58 Itd 428 Ahd".

For Appellant: Shri Avinash RavaniFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle (Sr.AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition @ 12.5% of bogus purchases as against 100% made by the Assessing Officer misinterpreting the judgement in the case of M/s Simit P Seth ... Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the CIT(A) erred restricting the addition to 12.5% of bogus purchase from M/s C.R. Enterprises as against 25% made by the Assessing Officer, which is proved bogus in the independent enquiry carried out during course

Manoj Bokadia, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4511/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 4511/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2011-12) Manoj Bokadia, M/S. Sharon Fitting Impex, Pawapuri Building, 9Th Khetwadi Lane, Near Jain Temple, Mumbai 400 004. Pan: Alrpb-8253-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), Matru Mandir Bldg., Room No.221, 2Nd Flor, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 007 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smita Verma सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

metals. The assessment for assessment year 2011-12 in the case of assessee was reopened for the reason that the assessee had allegedly obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.2,19,18,422/- from various (5), dealers declared as hawala operators. 2 During assessment proceedings, the assessee could neither produce ... Assessing Officer after examining the facts of case and documents on record concluded that assessee made purchases from grey market and thereafter obtained bogus purchase bills from entry providers. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of assessee and made addition of Rs.13,96,763/- by estimating margin @ 12.5% on bogus

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 25/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 71,97,83,480/- in the hands of the appellant being the alleged bogus purchases without any corroborative basis and only on the assumptions made by the Learned Assessing Officer. 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) had erred in considering only ... considering the income offered by the Appellant during the search proceedings amounting to Rs. 30,00,00,000/- which relates to alleged bogus Purchases. Such, non- consideration has resulted in double taxation of Rs. 30,00,00,000/- which already forms part of the addition made during

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 24/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 71,97,83,480/- in the hands of the appellant being the alleged bogus purchases without any corroborative basis and only on the assumptions made by the Learned Assessing Officer. 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) had erred in considering only ... considering the income offered by the Appellant during the search proceedings amounting to Rs. 30,00,00,000/- which relates to alleged bogus Purchases. Such, non- consideration has resulted in double taxation of Rs. 30,00,00,000/- which already forms part of the addition made during

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 23/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 71,97,83,480/- in the hands of the appellant being the alleged bogus purchases without any corroborative basis and only on the assumptions made by the Learned Assessing Officer. 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) had erred in considering only ... considering the income offered by the Appellant during the search proceedings amounting to Rs. 30,00,00,000/- which relates to alleged bogus Purchases. Such, non- consideration has resulted in double taxation of Rs. 30,00,00,000/- which already forms part of the addition made during

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1512/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 71,97,83,480/- in the hands of the appellant being the alleged bogus purchases without any corroborative basis and only on the assumptions made by the Learned Assessing Officer. 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) had erred in considering only ... considering the income offered by the Appellant during the search proceedings amounting to Rs. 30,00,00,000/- which relates to alleged bogus Purchases. Such, non- consideration has resulted in double taxation of Rs. 30,00,00,000/- which already forms part of the addition made during