← 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 32 (3)(4), Mumbai vs. Shreeram Steel Corporation, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 6437/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6437/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-32(3)(4) M/S Shreeram Steel Corporation R.No.735, 7Th Floor 127, Magazine Street बिाम/ Kautilya Bhawan Darukhana, Mazagaon Vs. Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 010 Mumbai – 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapfs-0288-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/04/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. However, We Find That The Revenue Is Contesting The Deletion Of Penalty Of Rs.2.55 Lacs U/S 271(1)(C) By Learned First Appellate Authority Vide Impugned Order Dated 26/07/2019. The Penalty Has Been Deleted In View Of The Fact That Addition On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Has Been Made On Estimated Basis.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar- Ld. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

first appellate authority vide impugned order dated 26/07/2019. The penalty has been deleted in view of the fact that addition on account of alleged bogus purchases has been made on estimated basis. 2. After going through material on record, we find that quantum of penalty under dispute is below threshold

Pragaram J Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2)(5), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5569/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5569/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Pragaram J. Patel Ito-19(2)(5) 67/26, 2Nd Floor, Kholsawala Bldg. Matru Mandir बिाम/ Dr. M.G. Mahimtura Marg Mumbai – 400 020. Vs. 3Rd Kumbharwada Mumbai - 400 004. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpp-1462-B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / 05/04/2021 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. However, The Material On Record Was Sufficient For Disposal Of The Appeal. The Ld. Dr Pleaded For Dismissal Of The Appeal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Addition On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Vide Order Dated 20/06/2019 As Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No.Cit(A)-4/Ito-19(2(5)/E-Filing-51/2018-19. Our Adjudication To The Subject Matter Of Appeal Would Be As Given In Succeeding Paragraphs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

appeal. The Ld. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. The assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of certain addition on account of alleged bogus purchases vide order dated 20/06/2019 as passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No.CIT

ITO 28(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjay A Choubey, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4789/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4789/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-28(3)(1), Mumbai Shri Sanjay Choubey Room No.316, 3Rd Floor,6Th Tower, Gharondha Co-Op Hsg. Society बिाम/ Vashi Railway Stn.Complex F-27, Room No.04 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. Sector -9, Ghansoli Navi Mumbai-400 701. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afkpc-2939-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

contests the order of learned first appellate authority dated 15/05/2019 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 framed

Pavapuri Metals and Tubes, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2)(5), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4649/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4649/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Pavapuri Metals & Tubes Ito-19(2)(5) बिाम/ 15, Vimal Darshan Building Matru Mandir Ground Floor, 9Th Khetwadi Lane Tardeo Road Vs. Mumbai – 400 004. Mumbai – 400 007. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfp-4994-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 17/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / 05/04/2021 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

disposal of appeal. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of appeal justifying the estimations made by lower authorities on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. The material facts are that the assessee being resident firm stated to be engaged in trading of metals was assessed for the year under ... 15/01/2016 in view of the fact that pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Authorities, it transpired that the assessee obtained bogus purchase bills for Rs.56.21 Lacs from 6 parties as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law vide