← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Free India Assurance Services Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5268/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 5268/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6(3)(1), Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Free India Assurance Services Ltd., 209, Prime Plaza, B.M.Road, Elphinstone (East), Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacf3879K ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Subobdh Ratnaparkhi Revenue By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M:

For Appellant: Shri Subobdh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 69C

dated 11/04/2019 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Shri Sanjay J. Sethi, representing the Department submitted that the assessee has indulged in bogus purchases. Since, the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the purchases and suppliers, the Assessing Officer made 2 आअसं. 5268/मुं/2019 ... entire such purchases aggregating to Rs.4,83,525/-. In the first appeallate proceedings, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% on bogus purchases. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the entire bogus purchases should be disallowed in line with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India