← 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 22 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Ramniklal S Gosalia & Co., Mumbai

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

ITA 7339/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 22(3) Vs. M/S Ramniklal S. 305, 3Rd Flr, Piramal Gosali & Co. Chambers Lal Baug, 608 National House Parel, Mumbai – Bapurao Jagtap Road, 400012 Jacob Circle, Mumbai – 400011. Pan/Gir No. : Aadfr2284G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Mishra, Dr Respondent By : Ms. Drutika, Ar Date Of Hearing 20.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 33 Mumbai, Passed U/S. 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mishra, DRFor Respondent: Ms. Drutika, AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80I

latest decision of SC in the case of Ms. NK Proteins Ltd Vs. CIT, wherein the Supreme Court has decided the issue of bogus purchases with a M/s. Ramniklal Gosalia & Co. direction of making addition amounting to entire bogus purchases as assessee income. 2. On the facts ... circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit element embedded in the amount represented by bogus purchase recorded in the books of accounts at 12.5% of the total bogus purchase without appreciating the fact that any expenditure not found to be incurred

Income Tax Officer-20(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Deepak Kumar Mangilal Jain, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5385/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.5385/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 20(1)(4), Shri Deepak Kumar M. Jain R. No. 112, 1St Floor बिाम/ 3, Bhandari Street Piramal Chambers Kumbharwada Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai–400 012 Mumbai – 400 004 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Afzpj-4222-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 144

Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)] dated 29/05/2017 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. 3. 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.63.54 Lacs from thirteen entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee

ITO 32 (1)(6), Mumbai vs. Rajesh Horachand Desai, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7890/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7890/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 32(1)(6), Rajesh Hirachand Desai R. No. 703, 7Th Floor B-15, Baidyanath Dham बिाम/ Vs. 3Rd Floor, Tps-Iii, R. No. 05, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Bandra East,Mumbai-400 051 Vazira Naka, Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpd-1684-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Ms. Ruchi Rathod, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchi Rathod, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 10/10/2019 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. After going through rival submissions, our adjudication to the appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. 3.1 The material facts are that ... 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.96.57 Lacs from five entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee

M/S Rastriya Steel & Engineering Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19 (3), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7836/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7836/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Rastriya Steel & Engg. Co. Acit – 19(3) बिाम/ 74/77, West View Building, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 10Th Khethwadi, Mumbai -400 004 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aagfr-9084-B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Addition On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. Though None Appeared For Assessee, However, After Going Through Impugned Order, It Could Be Observed That The Assessee Could Not Effectively Substantiate His Stand Before First Appellate Authority Which Resulted Into Confirmation Of Action Of Ld. Ao With Enhancement. The Impugned Order Is An Ex-Parte Order.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. DR

Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of certain addition on account of alleged bogus purchases for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Though none appeared for assessee, however, after going through impugned order

ITO 9 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Dharia Switchgear & Controls Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7732/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7732/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito 9(3)(1), M/S Dharia Switchgear & R. No. 419, 4Th Floor Controls Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate, 38, Mistry Industrial Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Midc Andheri (East),Mumbai-400 053 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-1380-M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 30/09/2019 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.23.84 Lacs from two entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee

ITO 24 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri. Devdas Manjayya Sherugar, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6893/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6893/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-24(1)(5) Shri Devdas Manjayya Sehrugar बनाम/ 607, Piramal Chambers Gala No.9, Ark Ind. Premises Csl Jeejeebhoy Lane, Lalbaug Makwana Road, Andheri East Vs. Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan No. : Aayps-4717-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Joshi– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40

Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 26/08/2019 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.52.00 Lacs from nine entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee

M/S. Radha Gopi Impex, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-32(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5260/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5260/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Radha Gopi Impex Acit-Circle 32(3) 11Th Floor, Flat No.1102, Mamta Heights बनाम/ G Block, Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex 414, Devdas Lane, Off. Svp Road Bandra East Vs. Boriwali West, Mumbai – 400 103 Mumbai - 400051 Pan No. : Aahfr-0445-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Joshi– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 10/06/2019 which has confirmed certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee contest the legality of reassessment proceedings as well as quantum additions on merit. 2. Though none appeared for assessee ... assessee was processed u/s 143(1). However, pursuant to search operations on Shri Rajendra Jain Group, it transpired that the assessee made alleged bogus purchases of Rs.200.09 Lacs from an entity namely M/s Aadi Impex allegedly run by that group. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process

Amitanil Modi (HUF), Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.03/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Amitanil Modi (Huf) बिधम/ Pr.Cit-33 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan B-401, Subh Shanti Complex Vs. M.B.Road, Dhanukar Wadi Bkc, Bandra(E) Kandivali(W) Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahha5667G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajiv Harit, Cit(Dr) Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29/03/2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, Mumbai In View Of Section 263 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Relevant To The A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. “ The Hon.Pr..Cit Erred In Holding The Order Framed By The Ld.Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 On 07.12.2016, To Be Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Accordingly The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Hon.Pr.Cit U/S 263 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Was Not Valid & Justified By Law.

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

case, information was received from Safes tax Department and the office of DGIT(INV) that the abovementioned assessee was involved tor taking entries of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 1,84,45,1737- for A.Y. 2011-12 . In this case, the assessee had claimed that no- purchases ... Krupa Trading. Hence the purchases of Rs. 16.42.462/- was reduced from the total alleged purchases of Rs 1,84,45,173/- ,determining the total bogus purchases at Rs.1,68,02,711/-. 3 Amitanil Modi(HUF) AY 2011-12 The Assessing Officer has added back 2.28% of the tote' bogus purchases

Shri. Rajendra Prasad Maurya, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 -26 (2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 7107/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Rajendra Prasad Vs. Ita – 26(2)(5) Maurya, Rno. 319, 3Rd Floor Gaur Khan Estate, Near Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Ghamela Co. Lbs Marg Bandra, Mubai – Opp Best Depot Kurla 400051. West, Mumbai – 400070 Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm4614L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Mishra, Dr Date Of Hearing 19.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -38 Mumbai, Passed U/S. 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

appeal: “1. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring the facts that addition is only made on purely estimated basis on account of alleged bogus purchases by estimating a part of alleged bogus purchases as non-genuine, for which there is no basis. Rajendra Prasad Maurya, Mumbai ... received information from sales tax department through DGIT (Inv.) Wing, Mumbai that the assessee has entered into bogus purchase Rajendra Prasad Maurya, Mumbai transactions with the parties who are providing accommodation bills. As per the information of Sale Tax Department, Govt of Maharashtra the assessee is one of the beneficiary