← 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

Asst CIT 28 (1), Navi Mumbai vs. Bijoy Devassy Thoppil, Navi Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.05/Mum/2020 (धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-28(1) Bijoy Devassy Thoppil Room No.306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower बनाम/ A-702, Meridian Apts. Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi Sector-6, Nerul Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 703 Navi Mumbai-400 702 स्थायीलेखासुं./जीआइआरसुं./ Pan/Gir No. Acrp-5663-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi-Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. P. Daniel-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel-Ld. AR
Section 133(6)Section 144

Income Tax (Appeals)- 26, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 22/10/2019 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. The Ld. DR pleaded for restoration of assessment framed by Ld. AO whereas Ld. AR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 3.1 The material ... r.w.s. 147 on 09/03/2015. Pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.) / Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, it transpired that the assessee made alleged bogus purchases of Rs.5.88 Lacs from an entity namely M/s Praveen Steel Traders / Anuradha Traders. Accordingly, the case was reopened and the assessee was required

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Sanjay K Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5818/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5818/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) Income Tax Officer 32(3)(3), Room No.735, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Sanjay K. Shah, 502, 5Th Floor, Sreenathi Tower, 56Th Tps Road, Borivali (W) Mumbai 400 092 Pan: Aawfs-7410-A ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tejas Shah सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/06/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar MishraFor Respondent: Shri Tejas Shah

basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra and DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai. As per information received, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.32,01,509/- from various (7) hawala dealers. During the course assessment proceedings the assessee 2 failed to discharge his onus ... proving genuineness of dealers and the purchases made from them. The Assessing Officer made addition of 12.5% of bogus purchases. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 8%. Now, the Revenue is in appeal assailing the findings

Income Tax Officer -20 (1) (5), Mumbai vs. Shri Imtiyaz A Chaudhary, Mumbai

ITA 5814/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5814/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) Income Tax Officer 20(1)(5) Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Imtiyaz A. Chaudhary, Room No.1, Ground Floor, Hashim Jetha Chawl,Zakaria Bunder Road, Sewri, Mumbai 400 015. Pan: Afypc-8106N ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Pramod Kumar Parida सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/06/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar MishraFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida
Section 133(6)

Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra representing the Department submitted that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs.24,87,488/- from 2 various (5) hawala dealers. During the assessment proceedings the assessee could neither prove bona-fide ... Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short 'the Act') to the suspicious dealers were received. The Assessing Officer estimated profit margin on bogus purchase transactions at 12.5% and made addition of Rs.3,10,936/- The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 8% on bogus purchases. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that estimation

Income Tax Officer 32(1) (2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashish Ashwinbhai Mehta, Mumbai

ITA 5785/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5785/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2011-12) Income Tax Officer -32(1)(2) Room No.704, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Ashish Ashwinbhai Mehta, ‘B’Wing No.12, Estee Geejay Society, Saibaba Nagar, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092 Pan: Ahvpm-8168-P ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manish J. Seth सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/06/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar MishraFor Respondent: Shri Manish J. Seth
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)

Sushil Kumar Mishra representing the Department submitted that during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs.1,86,68,872/- from various (16) hawala dealers. During assessment proceedings, the assessee could neither prove bona-fide of dealers ... dealer i.e. M/s. Navdeep Trading Corporation responded to the notice denying any transaction with the assessee. The Assessing Officer estimated profit margin on bogus purchases at 12.5% and made addition of Rs.23,33,609/-. The CIT(A) reduced the addition to 8% of bogus purchases. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that

ITO 26 (2)(7), Mumbai vs. Smt. Nirmala Tukaram Botre, Mumbai

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.193/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.194/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer-26(2)(7) Smt. Nirmala Tukaram Botre Room No.416, 4Th Floor 3/1, Vivek Niwas, Sai Baug बनाम/ Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block Village Road, Bhandup (W) Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 078 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aedpb-3550-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi-Ld.Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): -

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi-Ld.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69C

this common order for the sake of convenience & brevity. The learned CIT(A) has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us whereas it appears that the assessee has accepted the verdict of learned first appellate authority ... processed u/s 143(1). Pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.) / Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, it transpired that the assessee made alleged bogus purchases of Rs.20.29 Lacs from two entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process