← 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

Shri. Ravindra Bhaskar Deshmukh, Kalyan vs. Dy. CIT, Panvel

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1951/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1951 & 1952/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Ravindra Baskar बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Deshmukh L/H Neeta Ravindra Income Tax Panvel Circle, Vs. Deshmukh Panvel, Dist-Raigad. C/O Sh. Satyajit Zunjarrao 1003/2, Indraprastha Society, Adharwadi Chowk, Kalyan West-421301. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahcpd2323Gs (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhle (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. No.1951/M/2019 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. Ita Nos. 1951 & 1952/M/2019 A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

Lord CIT(A)-2 Thane disallowed to the extent of 25% i.e. Rs.7,90,688/- (25 x 31,62,752/- /100 of total alleged bogus purchases of Rs.31,62,752/- is confirmed and balance amount of Rs.23,72,064/- Rs.31,62,752/- (-) Rs.7,90,688/- is deleted. My Lord ... user of the material so purchased, the appellant has not inflated its purchase to reduce the tax profit so purchase is not the bogus purchase. Please delete the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A)-2 Thane to the extent of Rs.7,90,688/-.” 4. Brief facts of the case

ACIT-12(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Mudrika Labels Private Limited Mumbia, Mumbai

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

ITA 6338/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 12(3)(2) Vs. Mudrika Labels Pvt Room No. 128-H, 1St Ltd, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Gala No. 18, Niram Ind Mk Road, Mumbai – Estates, Chincholi 400020. Bunder Link Road, Malad West, Mumbai – 400064 Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm5217D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Gurbindar Singh, Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 11.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2021 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) -20 Mumbai, Passed U/S. 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Gurbindar Singh, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Income-tax Act, 1961 of Rs.4,39,000/- Mudrika Labels Pvt ltd., Mumbai without appreciating the facts that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its Original Return of Income and thus furnished particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Income ... Mudrika Labels Pvt ltd., Mumbai processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the A.O has reason to believe that the assessee has obtained bogus purchases bills as per information of the investigation wing of Mumbai, Income tax department and therefore notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued

Mrs. Kinnari Sahil Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 169/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 169/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mrs. Kinnari Sahil Shah बिधम/ Acit-19(2) 25, Ganeshwadi, M. J. Room No.207, Second Vs. Market, Kalbadevi, Mumbai- Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo 400002. Road, Mumbai-400007. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aopps9040H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Smita Verma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 13.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Act Of The Ld. Assessing Officer {Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 19(2)} Of Assuming Jurisdiction & Reopening Assessment U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Erred In Upholding The Act Of The Learned Assessing Officer Of Completing The Re-Assessment

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer {Assistant (Commissioner Income Tax- 19(2) of disallowing the expenses of Rs8,07,563/- for purchase of raw material, treating it as bogus purchases only on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department ignoring the details submitted to him during the re-assessment proceedings. Your appellant ... adverse observation is there in other aspects of working. It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, hundred percent disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from honourable jurisdictional High Court decision

The ITO, Ward-7(3), Surat vs. Shri Rajkumar Goyal, Surat

In the result this ground of appeal is also rejected

ITA 1487/AHD/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1487/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajkumar Goyal, Ward-7(3), Surat. Prop. Of Balaji Corporation, 201, Keshri Nandan Apartment, Bhothia Sheri, Rughnathpura, Surat – 395003. [Pan: Adtpj 2924 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 17.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 29.03.2012 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Unverifiable Purchase Amounting To Rs. 7,91,01,863/-. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of In Difference In Closing Balance Of Rs.8,05,11,522/-. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Be Set Aside & The Assessing Officer ‘S Order Be Restored.”

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

were made through the account payee cheque. On the basis of his above stated observation the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions of bogus purchases. . Shri Rajkumar Goyal ITA No.1487/AHD/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 11. We have also noted that before Ld. CIT(A), as well as before

ACIT Circle-3, Kalyan vs. Umashankar Ramadin Sharma, Thane

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 7434/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7434/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7435/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7436/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-Circle 32 Shri Umashankar Ramadin Sharma 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion B-03, Rameshwar Kripadham Chs Ltd बिाम/ Murbad Road Babasaheb Joshi Marg Vs. Kalyan (W) – 421 301 Phadke Cross Road Dombivali (E)- 421 201 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No.Aaffv-0714-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad – Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 13/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad – Ld. Sr. DR

CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 [F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-TTJ(Pt.). 2. The Ld. DR submitted that penalty on addition on account of alleged bogus purchases should be construed to be covered by exception clause 10(e) of the circular since the same was levied on account of quantum additions