← 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 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 1511/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

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 1510/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

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 116/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

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

ITO Ward 3 (4), Thane vs. Shri. Yesudevasi Romani Pitachaiya Nadar, Thane

In the result, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 411/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 411/Mum/2020 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Income Tax Officer, Shri Yesudevasi Ramani Ward-3(4), Thane Pitachaiya Nadar Room No. 09, 6 Th Floor, B-Wing, फनाभ/ A-204, Cosmos Heritage, Wagle Industrial Estate, Prampara Manpada, Thane Vs. Thane (W) (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Adipn5236E अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Khalsa, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2021 आदेश / O R D E R एभ. फारगणेश, रेखा सदस्म के द्वाया / Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal Of Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-2, Nashik [In Short Cit(A)], Dated 09.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 19.03.2014 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. The Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Learned Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition To 25% On Shri Yesudevasi Romani Pitachaiya Nadar; Ay 2009-10 Account Of Bogus Purchases Made From Non-Existent Vendors In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Khalsa, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition to 25% on Shri Yesudevasi Romani Pitachaiya Nadar; AY 2009-10 account of bogus purchases made from non-existent vendors in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have

Income Tax Officer 32 (2) (4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nilesh M Jainq, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, being devoid of any merit

ITA 5825/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5825/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) Income Tax Officer-32(2)(4) 718, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Nilesh M. Jain, B-602, Tulip Building, Royal Complex, Eksar Road, Borivali West, Mumbai 400 092 Pan: Aajpj- 7580-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms.Smita Verma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Sharma सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/06/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms.Smita VermaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Sharma
Section 133(6)

material supplier. 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.49,11,365/- from various (13) hawala dealers. The assessee furnished relevant documents Including purchase bills, and details of 2 payments ... purchases. After considering the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,13,924/- by estimating G.P @ 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases. In first appeal, the CIT(A) took cognisance of G.P declared by the assessee and restricted the addition to 9% of bogus purchases

ITO 22 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S Gold Coin Fashion, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit

ITA 5706/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5706/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2011-12) Income Tax Officer-22(1)(5), Room No.323, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Gold Coin Fashion, 2, Kudkar Chawl, Khotwadi, Near Saibaba Mandir, P.M Road, Santacruz(W), Mumbai 400 052 Pan: Aaafg-4041-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Smita Verma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/06/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Smita VermaFor Respondent: None

assessment for assessment year 2011-12 in the case of assessee was reopened on the ground that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.21,956/- from M/s. Somnath International, a declared hawala operator by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. The 2 Assessing Officer ... made estimated disallowance of 25% on alleged bogus purchases. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance on bogus purchases to 12.5%, hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 3. Ms. Smita Verma representing the Department submitted that the assessee has failed

Shri. Chirag Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 31 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4876/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 4876/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) Shri Chirag Rajendra Shah, 801, Laxmi Villa, Road No.3, Plot No.281, Jawahar Nagar, Near Suvidha Hospital, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 104. Pan: Avqps 7888H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer -31(1)(3), Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smitha Verma सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/06/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Smitha Verma
Section 133(6)

before the Assessing Officer to substantiate genuineness of purchases, however, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.18,58,787/- by estimating G.P on alleged bogus purchases at 8%. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) without appreciating facts and documents on record dismissed ... assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-10 the Tribunal in ITA No.792/Mum/2017 decided on 07/12/2019 has directed to restrict the addition on bogus purchases at the same rate as that of other genuine purchases. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that in the assessment year under appeal