← 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

DCIT - 11 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vivid Vision Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7119/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7119/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7120/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-11(3)(2) M/S Vivid Trexim Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ Room No.427 440-443, F-Wing, Solaris-1 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off. Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E) Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 072 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No.Aabcv-8727-B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad – Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 12/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

convenience & brevity. 3. In AY 2010-11, the revues is aggrieved by deletion of certain addition of Rs.26.28 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18. Mumbai {CIT(A)} vide impugned order dated 27/08/2019. 4. The material facts are that the assessee being ... assessed u/s 143(3) on 24/03/2013. Pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, it was alleged that the assessee made bogus purchases of Rs.26.28 Lacs from an entity namely M/s Induja Traders Private Ltd, Mumbai. The assessee submitted that it has only purchased DFIA license from that

Pravin Hirabhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4162/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepravin Hirabhai Patel Vs. Ito – Ward 26(2)(4) C-70, Harishvardhan C-11, Pratyakshakar Chs Ltd., Plot No. 185, Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Saki Vihar Road, Powai, (E), Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400072. Pan/Gir No. : Aaipp2779H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Roshan Ochani, Ar Respondent By : Shri Manpreet Duggal, Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.05.2021 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) -17 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: Shri Roshan Ochani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

there was no additional evidence to establish that there conscious or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment in respect of the alleged bogus purchases. 4. Because Ld. AO and CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in levying penalty of Rs. 13,12,378/- even when the authorities ... received information from the sales tax department through DGIT (Inv.) Wing, Mumbai that the assessee has entered into bogus purchase transactions with several parties who are providing accommodation bills. As per the information, the assessee is one of the beneficiary and obtained bogus Pravin Hirabhai Patel, Mumbai bills aggregating

Jaswantlal J Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 512/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 510/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2009-10) आअसं. 511/मुं/2018 ("न. व.2010-11) आअसं. 512/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2011-12) Mr Jaswantlal J Shah, 60, Bapu Khote, Cross Lane, Mumbai 400 003 Pan: Aadps 2464H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Aci, Central Circle -32, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 127

Addition of Rs.18,91,105/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (The AO for short) on account of so called bogus purchases, has been restricted to only 12.5% of the total purchase amount, presuming it to be the profit margin of the appellant, which is factually and legally incorrect ... appeal is without any merit, hence, the same is dismissed. 6. In ground No.2 of appeal, the assessee has assailed addition on account of bogus purchases. The assessee is a trader in ferrous and non-ferrous metals. On the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department, Government

Jaswantlal J Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 510/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 510/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2009-10) आअसं. 511/मुं/2018 ("न. व.2010-11) आअसं. 512/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2011-12) Mr Jaswantlal J Shah, 60, Bapu Khote, Cross Lane, Mumbai 400 003 Pan: Aadps 2464H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Aci, Central Circle -32, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 127

Addition of Rs.18,91,105/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (The AO for short) on account of so called bogus purchases, has been restricted to only 12.5% of the total purchase amount, presuming it to be the profit margin of the appellant, which is factually and legally incorrect ... appeal is without any merit, hence, the same is dismissed. 6. In ground No.2 of appeal, the assessee has assailed addition on account of bogus purchases. The assessee is a trader in ferrous and non-ferrous metals. On the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department, Government

M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys P.Ltd, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalna

In the result, appeal of the assesse in ITA No

ITA 81/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 40/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalna. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.B-15, Addl. Midc Area, Jalna- 431 203. Pan : Aacct9215F ………प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 81/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. C/O. Sandeep Narendra Agarwal, Bharat Nagar, Near Shivaji Statue, Jalna-431 203. Pan : Aacct9215F .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalna. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 133(6)Section 40A(3)

have heard the submissions made by the Ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. We find that this is case of bogus purchases wherein information of hawala trading was furnished by Sales Tax Department and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has confirmed 10% of the entire bogus purchases addition ... other hand, the Assessing Officer has imposed 100% of the entire bogus purchases transaction. The Ld. DR has submitted for confirmation of order of Assessing Officer with 100% addition. We find that in the similar facts and circumstances and on identical situation, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

Income Tax Officer, Jalna vs. M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd, Jalna

In the result, appeal of the assesse in ITA No

ITA 40/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 40/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalna. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.B-15, Addl. Midc Area, Jalna- 431 203. Pan : Aacct9215F ………प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 81/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. C/O. Sandeep Narendra Agarwal, Bharat Nagar, Near Shivaji Statue, Jalna-431 203. Pan : Aacct9215F .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalna. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 133(6)Section 40A(3)

have heard the submissions made by the Ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. We find that this is case of bogus purchases wherein information of hawala trading was furnished by Sales Tax Department and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has confirmed 10% of the entire bogus purchases addition ... other hand, the Assessing Officer has imposed 100% of the entire bogus purchases transaction. The Ld. DR has submitted for confirmation of order of Assessing Officer with 100% addition. We find that in the similar facts and circumstances and on identical situation, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

DCIT Circle-15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sonak Engineering Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7287/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7287/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-15(3)(2) M/S Sonak Engineering Pvt. Ltd. R.No.451, 4Th Floor बिाम/ R-371, Ttc Industrial Area Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Thane Belapur Rabale Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 701 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aagcs-0120-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh-Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/04/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

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

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] 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.15.85 Lacs from three entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee