← 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 14 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Seco Warwick Allied Pvt Ltd., Thane

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7114/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 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.7114/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-14(3)(2) Seco Warwick Allied Pvt. Ltd. R.No.455, 4Th Floor बिाम/ 5Th Floor, Amfotech I.T.Work Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Road No.8, Wagle Industrial Midc Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Thane - 400604 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-8938-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh-Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/04/2021 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)-22, 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 ... processed u/s 143(1). However, pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, it transpired that the assessee made alleged bogus purchases of Rs.14.69 Lacs from an entity namely M/s Mihir Sales Private Limited. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process

Asst. CIT Circle-6 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Anika Apparels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6560/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6560/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit-Circle 6(1)(1) M/S Anika Apparels Private Ltd. 522, 5Th Floor बनाम/ 101, Amir Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Sun Mill Compound, Lower Parel Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan No. : Aafca-3169-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, 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 ... processed u/s 143(1). However, pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, it transpired that the assessee made alleged bogus purchases of Rs.5.19 Lacs from three entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process

DCIT Circle- 6 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Auchetel Products Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6542/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6542/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-Circle 6(1)(2) M/S Auchtel Products Ltd. 506, 5Th Floor बनाम/ 142/C, Victor House, N.M.Joshi Marg Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Lower Parel Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan No. : Aaach-0975-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, 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 ... 18/10/2013. 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.35.68 Lacs from three entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee

ACIT 32 (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Himanshu K Modi, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5786/MUM/2019[2008-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2021AY 2008-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.5786/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.5811/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-32(1) Sh. Himanshu K.Modi R.No.702, 7Th Floor C-4/006, Yogi Darpan Society बिाम Kautilya Bhawan Eksar Road, Borivali / Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 091 Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpm-8724-B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Kamlesh Doshi-Ld. Ar) Revenue By : Shri S.S.Iyengar-Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/04/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2008-09 & 2009-10 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority Which Has Provided Certain Relief To The Assessee On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases. The Facts As Well As Issues Are, More Or Less, Common & Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Doshi-Ld. AR)For Respondent: Shri S.S.Iyengar-Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

contest separate orders of learned first appellate authority which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. The facts as well as issues are, more or less, common and therefore, the appeals were heard together and are now being disposed-off by way of this ... Construction Co. was assessee for the year under consideration u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 27/03/2015 wherein it was saddled with disallowance of alleged bogus purchases @25% which worked out to be Rs.10.96 Lacs. The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.) which indicated

DCIT Central Circle 3(1), Mumbai vs. Lucent Diamonds, Mumbai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 2099/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2021AY 2012-13

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.2099/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.2100/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit–Cc-3(1) M/S. Lucent Diamond Room No.1924, 19Th Floor बिाम Flat No.8, Usha Kiran Chs Air India Building, Nariman Point Ml Dhanukar Marg / Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 026. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-0122-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1833/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. C.O. No.09/Mum/2021 (Arising From I.T.A. No.2099/Mum/2019) (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. C.O. No.08/Mum/2021 (Arising From I.T.A. No.2100/Mum/2019) (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Lucent Diamond Dcit–Cc-3(1) बिाम/ Room No.1924, 19Th Floor Flat No.8, Usha Kiran Chs Ml Dhanukar Marg Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400 026. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-0122-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri N.R. Agrawal-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Dr. Rajeev Harit -Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Rajeev Harit -Ld. CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Proceeding further, learned counsel for Assessee (AR), at the outset, submitted that issues of appeals / cross-objections i.e. addition on account of alleged bogus purchases as well as disallowance of labor charges are covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s group / associated concern namely M/s Sur Gems ... modus operandi of purchases made by various group concerns since there were allegations that the assessee group indulged in accepting accommodation entries of bogus purchases. These purchases were stated to be made from alleged bogus concerns being run / operated by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain group who was also subjected to search

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Ganpat Metal Industries, Mumbai

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

ITA 5125/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5125/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-19(1)(3) बिधम/ Ganpat Metal Industries Room No.220, 2Nd Floor, Shop No.1 Narayan Niwas, Vs. 2Nd Khetwadi Lane Near Matru Mandir Building, Tardeo Road, Mumbai- Alankar Cinema, Mumbai- 400007. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfg1194B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-07, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition @ 12.5% As Against @ 19.5% Made By The Ao On Bogus Purchases Despite The Fact That The Addition Was Made On Basis Of Credible Information Received From Dgit(Inv.) Based On Information Supplied From Sales Tax Authorities.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition @ 12.5% as against @ 19.5% made by the AO on bogus purchases despite the fact that the addition was made on basis of credible information received from DGIT(Inv.) based on information supplied from sales tax authorities ... upon the assessee. An information was received from the DGIT(Inv.) Wing, Mumbai, in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken the bogus purchases accommodation entries from the following six parties in sum of Rs.4,505,620/-. Name of the party FY Amount Total Romex Metal & Tubes