← 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

Mr. Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeals stands dismissed

ITA 4512/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

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.5665/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-19(3)(1) Shri Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain बिाम/ 89,2Nd Pathan Street Matru Mandir 2Nd Floor, Room No.202 5Th Kumbharwada Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Mumbai – 400 004. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Abvpj-7944-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4512/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain Ito-19(3)(1) 89,2Nd Pathan Street बिाम/ Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor 5Th Kumbharwada Room No.202,Tardeo Road Vs. Mumbai – 400 004. Mumbai – 400 007. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Abvpj-7944-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. Sr. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. Sr. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148

During hearing, it transpires that the subject matter of cross- appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 is additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The legal grounds as urged by the assessee in the grounds of appeal have not been pressed before us. 2. We have carefully heard ... r.w.s. 147 on 09/03/2015. The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing that the assessee procured bogus purchase bills for Rs.32.30 Lacs from two entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 07/03/2014 which remained un-responded

Mohd. Maroff Alam, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2550/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.2550/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mohd. Maroof Alam Ito-21(2)(3) 10Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan 381, Italian Building बिाम/ Room No.20, 1St Floor Churchgate, M.K. Road Vs. Ghas Gali, Agripada Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai – 400 011. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahapa-4187-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Nawaz Haindaday-Ld. Ar 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 Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Nawaz Haindaday-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

Member) 1. In the aforesaid appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases vide order dated 30/01/2019 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48,Mumbai [CIT(A)]. 2. We have carefully heard the rival submissions

ITO -19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain, Mumbai

Appeals stands dismissed

ITA 5665/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

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.5665/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-19(3)(1) Shri Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain बिाम/ 89,2Nd Pathan Street Matru Mandir 2Nd Floor, Room No.202 5Th Kumbharwada Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Mumbai – 400 004. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Abvpj-7944-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4512/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain Ito-19(3)(1) 89,2Nd Pathan Street बिाम/ Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor 5Th Kumbharwada Room No.202,Tardeo Road Vs. Mumbai – 400 004. Mumbai – 400 007. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Abvpj-7944-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. Sr. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. Sr. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148

During hearing, it transpires that the subject matter of cross- appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 is additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The legal grounds as urged by the assessee in the grounds of appeal have not been pressed before us. 2. We have carefully heard ... r.w.s. 147 on 09/03/2015. The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing that the assessee procured bogus purchase bills for Rs.32.30 Lacs from two entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 07/03/2014 which remained un-responded

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Thane vs. Shri Harshand Valji Shah, Mumbai

ITA 5328/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5328/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer Shri Harshand Valji Shah Ward 1(5), Thane 401, Ramshanti Chs, फनाभ/ Ghantali Mandir, Vishnu Nagar, Naupada, Vs. Thane-400 602 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Accps1869B अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Khalsa, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Khalsa, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

against the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in regard to bogus purchases. For this, Revenue has raised the following two grounds: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... without appreciating the fact that there was definite finding in the assessment order in respect of Shri Harshand Valji Shah, AY 11-12 bogus purchases and of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income relating to purchases resulting into concealment of income.” 3. We have heard the learned DR and gone through

Jenil Steel India, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -19(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5889/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalejenil Steel India Vs. Ito – 19(1)(2) 56/64 1St Floor, Office Matru Mandir, Tardeao No. 2, Nanubhai Desai Road, Mumbai – Road, Mumbai - 400004 400007. Pan/Gir No. : Bepps6198B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2021 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) -30 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: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The A.O has received information from 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 of Sale Tax Department, Govt of Maharashtra the assessee ... Subsequently, the A.O. has initiated penalty proceedings u/s271(1)(c) of the Act, Since assessee has entered into bogus purchase transactions, the A.O relied on the findings in the scrutiny assessment and also observed that in spite of providing opportunity of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -23(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Ktc Co, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2703/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Vikas Awasthyआअसुं. 2703/भ ुं/2019 (यन.ि. 2007-08) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 23(2), 1St Floor, Room No. 114, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 007. ...... अऩीराथी /Appellant फनाभ Vs. M/S. Ktc Co. Ge 3040, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. Pan : Aagfk4725L ..... प्रयििादी/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra स निाई की यिधथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/12/2020 घोषणा की यिधथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/03/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 07/02/2019 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra Representing The Department Submitted That The Assessee Is Engaged In Diamond Business. On The Basis Of Information Received From Dgit(Invn.), Mumbai That The Assessee Has Indulged In Obtaining Accommodation

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra

genuine transactions. The assessee carried the issue in first appeal before the CIT(A), who has reduced the addition to 8% of total bogus purchases. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer has been quite considerate in making the addition @ 12.5% of bogus purchases. The addition was made ... authorities below examined. The Revenue in appeal has raised solitary ground assailing the findings of CIT(A) in restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to 8% of such purchases. The assessee has allegedly obtained accommodation entries amounting to Rs.89,36,609/- from M/s. Mohit International. During assessment proceedings

Shri. Late Gunvantrai C Doshi, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-56, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11

ITA 2484/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Vikas Awasthyआअसुं. 2483/भ ुं/2019 (यन.ि. 2009-10) आअसुं. 2484/भ ुं/2019 (यन.ि. 2010-11) Shri Late Gunvantrai C Doshi, B-16, Raj Mayur, S.L.Road, Mulund (West),Mumbai 400 080. Pan:Aabpd 1054E ...... अऩीराथी /Appellant फनाभ Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, R.No.3101, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Mittal Court, Nariman Point Mumbai -400 021. ..... प्रयििादी/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Sethi स निाई की यिधथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/12/2020 घोषणा की यिधथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/03/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sethi
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

assessment in the case of assessee for assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 were reopened. As per the information, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills for Rs.8,45,983/- in assessment year 2009-10 and for Rs.2,98,028/- in assessment year 2010-11 from various suspicious dealers ... with remarks ‘not known’. In the absence of any cogent evidence and confirmations from the suppliers, the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire bogus purchases in both the impugned assessment years. Aggrieved against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the assessee filed