← 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. 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 2483/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

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

M/S Super Industries, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2472/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2006-07 Super Industries, Vs Ito, Prop. S. Jagjit Singh, Ward-33(3), L/H Shri Joginder Singh, New Delhi. N.7, Gali No.9, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi. Pan: Aasps8033M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Ranu Mukherjee, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15Th September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-17, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2006- 07. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Dismissed By The Tribunal For Non-Appearance. Subsequently, The Tribunal, Vide Ma No.118/Del/2017, Order Dated 16Th February, 2018, Recalled Its Earlier Order. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & The Proprietor Of M/S Super Industries. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th October, 2006 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.1,89,640/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened On The Basis Of Information Obtained That The Assessee Indulged In Bogus Purchases/Accommodation Entries Provided By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Shri Vishesh Gupta, Shri Navneet & Shri Vaibhav Jain. Accordingly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened After Recording Reasons As Per The Provisions Of Section 147 Of The Act. Notice U/S 148 Dated 28Th March, 2013 Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. The Ao, Thereafter, Issued Statutory Notices. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee & Observing That The Assessee Has Made Bogus Purchase Of Rs.13,03,692/- From Shree Bankey Bihari Trading Co. & Shree Shyam Trading Co., Which Are Owned By The Persons Named Earlier, Made Addition Of Rs.13,03,692/- U/S 69C Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ranu Mukherjee, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69C

upon the assessee. The AO, thereafter, issued statutory notices. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee has made bogus purchase of Rs.13,03,692/- from Shree Bankey Bihari Trading Co. and Shree Shyam Trading Co., which are owned by the persons named earlier, made ... facts & circumstance of the case, The Ld. A. O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 13,03,692/- on A/c of bogus purchases & CIT(A)-17, New Delhi further erred in upholding the addition to the tune

Income Tax Officer-28(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Rahul H Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5651/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5617/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5651/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer, Rajul H Doshi Ward 28(2)(5), Flat No. B-42, Parswanath 3 R D 6Th Room No.308, Floor, फनाभ/ Garden Bhaudji Road, King Tower, Vashi Railway Station Circle, Matunga, Vs. Complex, Vashi-400 703 Mumbai-400 019 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aeppd8047F अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Kailash Kanojia, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Kailash Kanojia, DRFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, AR
Section 143(3)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

order of CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of bogus purchases. The Revenue has raised the identical worded grounds in both the years and the issue is exactly identical and hence, we will take ... Rs.6,63,190/- levied u/s 27 1(1)(c) of the Act as the penalty was levied on quantum additions made on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating that the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of such purchases by producing such parties before the Assessing Officer

ITO-28(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Rajul H Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5617/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5617/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5651/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer, Rajul H Doshi Ward 28(2)(5), Flat No. B-42, Parswanath 3 R D 6Th Room No.308, Floor, फनाभ/ Garden Bhaudji Road, King Tower, Vashi Railway Station Circle, Matunga, Vs. Complex, Vashi-400 703 Mumbai-400 019 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aeppd8047F अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Kailash Kanojia, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Kailash Kanojia, DRFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, AR
Section 143(3)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

order of CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of bogus purchases. The Revenue has raised the identical worded grounds in both the years and the issue is exactly identical and hence, we will take ... Rs.6,63,190/- levied u/s 27 1(1)(c) of the Act as the penalty was levied on quantum additions made on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating that the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of such purchases by producing such parties before the Assessing Officer

M/S Medibios Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5549/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5549/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) M/S Medibios Laboratories Limited The Income Tax Officer 102, Mangalam, Kulupwadi, Near Ward-12(3)(4), 148, फनाभ/ National Park, Borivali (East), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rod, Mumbai-400 068 Mumbai-400 020 Vs. (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcm4875D अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Thakrar, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Kailash Kanojia, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakrar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojia, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer as well as the Ld CIT(A) is erred in confirming addition of Rs.3,22,452/- as bogus purchases without considering the Fact that the Appellant had already filed purchase bill, copy of bank statement and delivery challan at the time of assessment and erred in levying penalty ... Briefly stated the facts are that the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has obtained the bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.3,22,452/- from hawala dealers identified by the Sales Tax Department. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings added

Shri. Suresh Kumar H Bhansali, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 257/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Vikas Awasthyआअसुं. 257/भ ुं/2019 (यन.ि. 2009-10) Suresh Kumar H. Bhansali 62/64, 2Nd Kumbharwada, Sant Sena Maharaj, Mumbai 400 004. ...... अऩीराथी /Appellant Pan : Aagpb8743H फनाभ Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 19(3)(4), Matru Mandir, Tardeo, ..... प्रयििादी/Respondent Mumbai 400 007. Assessee By : Shri S.L. Jain Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Sethi स निाई की यिधथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2020 घोषणा की यिधथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M:

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sethi
Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

obtained accommodation entries to the tune of Rs.47,83,212/-from various hawala operators. The Assessing Officer made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 05/03/2015 passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short ‘the Act’), the assessee ... Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on various decisions of the Tribunal to contend that addition to the extent of 2% on bogus purchases be sustained. 3. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Sethi, representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal by the assessee

ACIT, Circle-9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Digicable Network(India) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5494/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5494/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Acit M/S Digicable Network Income Tax, Circle-9(3)(1) (India) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 215, 2 N D Floor, B-8, Morol Industrial Area, फनाभ/ Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Next To Midc Police Station, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 093 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaccd6110D अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Kailash Karonjiya, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Kailash Karonjiya, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of bogus purchases 3. We have heard the learned Sr. DR and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the Assessing Officer during ... course of assessment proceedings noted that he has received information from Sales Tax authority that the assessee had shown bogus purchases/ hawala transactions from M/s PK Trading Company to the extent of Rs. 10,12,781/-. According to the Assessing Officer the assessee failed to provide the details and evidence

ACIT, Circle-9(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Dadi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5493/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5493/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Dadi Impex Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Circle-9(3)(1), 614, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Room No. 215, 2 N D Floor, Aayakar फनाभ/ Indl. Esate, Andheri (W), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 053 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcd7223Q अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Kailash Karonjiya, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Kailash Karonjiya, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

gone through the facts on record. We noted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills from certain parties, which are hawala dealers as per the list of suspicious dealers issued by Sales Tax Department, State of Maharashtra. According ... Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings estimated that the profit rate at the rate of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases and thereby made addition on this count at Rs.10,70,000/-. The additions made by Assessing Officer remain unchallenged. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings