← 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

ITO Ward 2(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Sunrise Industries, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5503/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5503/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) Ito Ward-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza Building, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, ...... अपीलाथ) /Appellant Kalyan (West)-421301. बनाम Vs. M/S Sunrise Industries Plot No. D/10, Murbad, Thane-421401. Pan: Abefs8084M ..... *ितवाद,/Respondent अपीलाथ) -ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sushil Kumar Mishra *ितवाद, -ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Deepak Raje सुनवाई क. ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/03/2021 घोषणा क. ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 06.06.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. आअसं. 5503/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) 2. Shri Deepak Raje Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessment In The Case Of Assessee Was Re-Opened & Addition Of Rs. 3,02,787/- Was Made On Account Of Bogus Purchases From Two Dealers I.E.

For Appellant: Sh. Sushil Kumar MishraFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Raje

submitted that the assessment in the case of assessee was re-opened and addition of Rs. 3,02,787/- was made on account of bogus purchases from two dealers i.e. (i) Skand Industries Rs. 2,49,315/- (ii) Samir Trading Corporation Rs. 53,472/- 3. The ld. AR submitted that ... appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) and furnish evidence to prove genuineness of the sales, therefore, the AO made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases. In First Appellate Proceedings, the assessee furnished relevant documents to prove genuineness of the purchases. The CIT(A) sought remand report from

Income Tax Officer 32 (3) (1), Mumbai vs. Raghu V. Menon, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5804/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

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.5804/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-32(3)(1) Shri Raghu V.Menon Room No.733, 7Th Floor बनाम/ A-401, Raj Utsav Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Shiv Vallabh Road, Ashok Van Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400 068 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aftpm-6863-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld.Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): -

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 11/06/2019 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. Though none appeared for assessee, however, material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal. The Ld. DR pleaded for restoration of assessment ... However, pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.) / Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, it transpired that the assessee made alleged bogus purchases of Rs.6.55 Lacs from three entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee

ITO 20 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. Zakir Ali Khan, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5848/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

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.5848/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-20(3)(5) Shri Zakir Ali Khan Room No.205, 2Nd Floor बनाम/ Mco, Tube Bpt, Plot No.214 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Kolsa Bunder, Darukhana Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agqpk-1081-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld.Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): -

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

Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 28/06/2019 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. Though none appeared for assessee, however, material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal. The Ld. DR pleaded for restoration of assessment ... However, pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.) / Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, it transpired that the assessee made alleged bogus purchases of Rs.14 Lacs from an entity namely M/s Asian Steel. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee was required

ITO 25 (2)95), Mumbai vs. Shri. Pragaram G Prajapati, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7982/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

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.7982/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-20(2)(5) Shri Pragaram G. Prajapati Room No.208, 2Nd Floor Prop. M/S. Gopal Forge Industries बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 34, Vaibhav Bhawan, Vs. 4Th Kamathipura Lane Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Airpp-4520-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld.Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/06/2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): -

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 23/10/2019 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. Though none appeared for assessee, however, material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal. The Ld. DR pleaded for restoration of assessment ... However, pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.) / Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, it transpired that the assessee made alleged bogus purchases of Rs.55.48 Lacs from seven entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee

Shri. Ratankumar Singhania, Mumbai vs. ITO 29 (3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7967/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 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.7967/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Ratankumar Singhania Ito-29(3)(1) बनाम/ 20, Suyog Industrial Estate Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W) Bandra East Vs. Mumbai-400 083 Mumbai-400 057 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahps-6826-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/06/2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. The Assessee Challenges The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 23/10/2019 Which Has Confirmed Addition Of 12.5% On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases As Made By Ld. Ao While Framing An Assessment U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 On 19/02/2015. The Assessee Also Challenges The Reassessment Proceedings On Legal Grounds.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 23/10/2019 which has confirmed addition of 12.5% on account of alleged bogus purchases as made by Ld. AO while framing an assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 19/02/2015. The assessee also challenges the reassessment proceedings

ITO 23 (1)94), Mumbai vs. Dewan Exports India, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 8020/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

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.8020/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-23(1)(4) Dewan Exports India बिाम/ 109, Ff, Matru Mandir, 618, Sagar Tech Plaza Tardeo Road Andheri Kurla Road, Saki Naka, Vs. Mumbai-400 007 Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaafd-3593-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi– Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 07/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi– Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 14/10/2019 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. Though none appeared for assessee, however, material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal. The Ld. DR pleaded for restoration of assessment ... However, pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.) / Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, it transpired that the assessee made alleged bogus purchases of Rs.16.80 Lacs from the entity namely M/s Amar Enterprises. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee was required

ACIT-C-17(2), Mumbai vs. Niraj Dilip Randery, Mumbai

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

ITA 5740/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 17(2), Vs. Niraj Dilip Randery Rm No. 116, 1St Floor, 80, Nagdevi Street, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai – 400003. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabpr3683H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Tharian Oommen, Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 08.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 58 Mumbai, Passed U/S. 143(3)R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Tharian Oommen, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) justified in restricting the addition made by the AO @ 12.5% of bogus purchases to 8.5% of such purchases, ignoring that the assessee was also unable to prove the genuineness of the purchases either by producing Niraj dilip randery, Mumbai ... received the information from the Sales Tax department Mumbai & DGIT (Inv) Wing, Mumbai that Niraj dilip randery, Mumbai the assessee has obtained Bogus purchase bills from 13 parties aggregating to Rs.79,16,865/-. The A.O has called for the details to prove the genuineness of purchase of goods. Whereas