← 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

Asst. CIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Catwalk World Wide Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue’s is dismissed

ITA 5696/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasst. Cit-6(2)(1) M/S. Catwalk World Wide Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 504, Aaykar Bhavan, 220 Atlas Mill Compound M. K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Mezzanine Floor, Ready Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 010 Pan/Gir No. Aaaccc 1276 B (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18 .03.2021 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-12/Dcit- 6(2)(1)/57/2016-17 Vide Order Dated 15.05.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dcit, Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide His Order Dated 23.03.2016. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Restricting The Disallowance Of Bogus Purchase At 12.5%. For This, The Revenue Has Raised The Various Grounds, Which We Need Not Reproduce For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreekala PardeshiFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

only issue in this appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) restricting the disallowance of bogus purchase at 12.5%. For this, the Revenue has raised the various grounds, which we need not reproduce for the sake of brevity. 3. We have heard the rival ... case. We note that the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has debited bogus purchases of Rs.8,38,703/- from the following hawala parties: 2 Asst. CIT vs. M/s. Catwalk World Wide Pvt. Ltd. Sr. Name of the PAN Amount

Asst. CIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chanvin Engineering Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5695/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasst. Cit-6(2)(1), M/S. Chanvim Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 504, Aaykar Bhavan, 3, Nanji Building, A. D. Marg, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Sewere, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 4729 P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Shreelala Pardeshi Respondent By : Shri M. Subramanian Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2021 : 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-12/Dcit- 6(2)(1)/B2-286/16-17 Vide Order Dated 20.05.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dcit, Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide His Order Dated 30.03.2016. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is As Regards To The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (‘A.O.’ For Short) In Regard To Bogus Purchases Amounting To Rs.2,36,250/-. The Revenue Has Raised The Issue Of Applicability Of Provisions Of Section 40(A)(3) Of The Act Also.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreelala PardeshiFor Respondent: Shri M. Subramanian
Section 143(3)Section 40

regards to the order of the ld. CIT(A), deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer (‘A.O.’ for short) in regard to bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,36,250/-. The Revenue has raised the issue of applicability of provisions of section 40(A)(3) of the Act also ... circumstances of the case. The A.O. noted that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.2,36,250/- in the trading account being bogus purchases from M/s. Siddhivinayak Steel. According to the A.O., M/s. Siddhivinayak Steel was a hawala party, in view of the information received 2 Asst

Asst. CIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chintamani Jewellery Arcade Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5694/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasst. Cit-6(2)(1) M/S. Chintamani Jewellery Arcade Room No. 504, Aaykar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Suraj Vista, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kashinath Dhuru Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aaccc 0640 B : (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Shreelata Pardeshi Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2021 : 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-12/Dcit- 6(2)(1)/B2-259/2016-17 Vide Order Dated 27.05.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dcit, Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide His Order Dated 18.03.2016. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance Of Bogus Purchase @ 12.5% Being Bogus Purchases Of Rs.2,54,737/- Which Comes To Rs.31,842/-. For This, The Revenue Has Raised The Various Grounds, Which We Need Not To Reproduce For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreelata PardeshiFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

order dated 18.03.2016. 2. The only issue in this appeal is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance of bogus purchase @ 12.5% being bogus purchases of Rs.2,54,737/- which comes to Rs.31,842/-. For this, the Revenue has raised the various grounds, which ... ornaments, diamond jewellery and silver articles. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) noted that the assessee has debited bogus purchases of Rs.2,54,737/- from one hawala parties, M/s. Krishna Diam as per the information received from the DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai. The A.O. added

Me Infraprojects P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4183/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanme Infraprojects P. Ltd. Dcit-10(2)(2) 404, Man Excellenza, Mumbai Opp. Pawan Hans, S. V. Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 056 Pan/Gir No. Aafcm 5012 N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rahul Hakani Respondent By : Shri Vidhyadhar V Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2021 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It- 521/10005/18-19 Vide Order Dated 14.05.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dcit, Circle-10(2)(2), Mumbai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 Vide His Order Dated 16.02.2015. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act On Account Of Bogus Purchases From Suspicious Dealers. For This, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground No.1:

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar V
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on account of bogus purchases from suspicious dealers. For this, the assessee has raised the following ground no.1: 2 ME Infraprojects P. Ltd. vs. DCIT Ground ... suspicious dealers. 3. 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.1,69,99,483/- from hawala dealers identified by the Sales Tax Department. The A.O. added the profit element

Shri Rajendra Narsinghmal Sanghvi HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbia

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

ITA 5406/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 5406/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2011-12) Shri Rajendra Narsinghmal Sanghvi Huf, Room No.5, 144/46, Purshottam Mullji Bldg., Dr.M.G.Mahimtura Marg, Mumbai 400 004. Pan: Aajhr9849D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer -19(3)91), Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400 007 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/03/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/03/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Section 133(6)Section 234A

substantiate genuineness of purchases made from suspicious dealers. The Assessing Officer considering the facts and the contentions of the assessee estimated G.P @ 12.5% on bogus purchases and made addition of Rs.6,97,773/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 10/11/2016, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) assailing reopening ... purchase transaction that has to be brought to tax. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) has determined the G.P @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The estimation of G.P by lower authorities is on higher side. In the trade of ferrous and non-ferrous metals the G.P generally varies between

Hiren Chandrakant Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-32(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5389/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 5389/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2009-10) Hiren Chandrakant Parekh, 402, Narmada Apartment, Shimpoli Road, Haridas Nagar, Borivali West, Mumbai 400 092 Pan: Afxpp8325D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer -32(1)(5) C-11, Room No.203, 2Nd Floor, Pratyakshakar Bhavan,Bandra Kurla Complex,, Mumbai 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/03/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/03/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Section 133(6)

substantiate genuineness of purchases made from suspicious dealers. The Assessing Officer considering the facts and the contentions of the assessee estimated G.P @ 12.5% on bogus purchases and made addition of Rs.13,10,144/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 16/03/2015, the assessee filed appeal before ... purchase transaction that has to be brought to tax. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) has determined G.P @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The estimation of G.P by lower authorities is on higher side. In the trade of ferrous and non-ferrous metals the G.P generally varies between

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-7(20(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Metropolitan Eximchem Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5371/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5371/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Metropolitan Eximchem Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., 1 St Room No. 126A, Floor, 201/B, Runwal & Omkar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, फनाभ/ Esquire, Opp. Sion Mumbai-400 020 Chunabhatti Signal, Eastern Vs. Express Highway, Sion(E), Mumbai-400 022 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacm9514C अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri. V.Vidyadhar, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri. V.Vidyadhar, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to addition made on account of unexplained investment in bogus purchases. For this, Revenue has raised the following two grounds :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Briefly stated facts are that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has made investment in bogus purchases i.e. unexplained investment to the tune of Rs.18,58,622/-. The Assessing Officer added the entire bogus purchase as unexplained amounting to Rs.18

Income Tax Officer-20(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Habibullah M. H. Mullajiwala(Prop.M/S.Lucky Supply Agency), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 5373/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.5373 & 5374/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer 20(1)(5) बिधम/ Shri Habibullah M. H. Room No.121, 1St Floor, Mullajiwala (Prop. M/S. Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel, Lucky Supply Agency) Mumbai-400012. Shop No. 8, Yusuf Manzil, 2, Sofia Zuber Road, Opp. Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai-400008. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpm7661R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Gurbinder Singh (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. Ita. No.5374/Mum/2017 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147

erred in granting relief of Rs.48.23,150/- by restricting the addition to gross profit ratio reported by the assessee of the alleged bogus purchases from hawala parties in respect of bogus purchases." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Rs.2,71,130. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received that the assessee has taken the bogus purchases entry in sum of Rs.56,12,229/-. Notice u/s 147/148 of the Act was given to the assessee. Subsequently, notices