← 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

ACIT - 20(1), Mumbai vs. Anil J Ahuja, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3904/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Anil Jagdishchandra Income Tax-20(1) Ahuja Room No.113, 1St Floor 1406, Tower-C Piramal Chambers Ashok Towers Lalbaug, Dr.S.S. Rao Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Parel (E) Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No.Aaabpa1016B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.75/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3904/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year :2010-11) Shri Anil Jagdishchandra Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ahuja Income Tax-20(1) Room No.113, 1St Floor 1406, Tower-C Ashok Towers Piramal Chambers Dr.S.S. Rao Road, Lalbaug, Parel (E) Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No.Aaabpa1016B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

order of ld. CIT(A) on the ground that ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.87.5% of the bogus purchases whereas the assessee by way of cross objection has challenged the partly sustenance of addition ... bogus purchases by ld. CIT(A). 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee has filed return of income on 15/10/2010 declaring total income at Rs.52,16,260/-. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s.148 on 08/03/2017 after the AO received information

ITO 8 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhairav Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4126/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4126/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito 8(2)(1) बिधम/ Bhairav Steel Enterprises Room No.259/A,2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 10, Kanti Nagar, A/30, Road, Mumbai-400020. Rajgruhi, Behind J. B. Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb9118K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 148

circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the suppressed profit to the extent of 3% of bogus purchases, when the assessee could not produce any parties or evidence that the said goods were purchased and the onus of proving genuineness of purchases ... information received from the Sales Tax Department through O/o the DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken the bogus purchase entries from the twelve parties in sum of Rs.8,64,19,368/- which are hereby as under: - Tin No. of the Hawala Party Amount

DCIT Cercle-1, Kalyan vs. Bhave Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed accordingly

ITA 1913/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1913/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Circle-1 बिधम/ Bhave Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza C/O. D. C. Bothra & Co. Vs. Llp (Ca) (Formerly Known Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, As D. C 297, Tardeo Road, Kalyan-West-421301 Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, . Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1818/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Bhave Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza C/O. D. C. Bothra & Co. Llp Vs. (Ca) (Formerly Known As D. Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, C 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Kalyan-West-421301 Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb7065K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajkumar Singh Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 16.01.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

existent vendors by means of relevant supporting documents related to movement of goods, stock register, etc. to restrict the addition to 12.5% of bogus purchases from the non-existent vendors. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... 27710298366V 10778664 Total 27750595164V 111193749 5. After the reply of the assessee, the AO raised the addition to the extent of 100% of the bogus purchase. The CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee as well as revenue

M/S Kundali Jewel (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO - 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3511/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3511/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer 12 Pvt. Ltd. (3)(1) Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Thakur Village, Kandivali Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. (E), Mumbai. Marg, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4337/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Income Tax Officer 12 बिधम/ M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) (3)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Thakur Village, Kandivali Marg, Mumbai-400020. (E), Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Pnek10340B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Gurbinder Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm) The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.3511/Mum/2019 4337/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. ModiFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 40

Rs.4,00,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act was added to the income of the assessee. The assessee has also taken the bogus purchase entry in sum of Rs.5,02,01,480/- from M/s. Nakshatra Business Pvt. Ltd. On account of 4 4337/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 non-proving ... sale, the AO disallowed the said bogus purchase in sum of Rs.5,02,01,480/- and added to the income of the assessee. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.5,26,93,420/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before

M/S J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3449/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. J. Kumar Dy. Cit, Infraprojects Ltd., Central Circle-5(1), 16A, Andheri Industrial Mumbai Estate, Vs. Veera Desasi Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacj9161C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jt. Cit (Osd) Cc-5(1), M/S. J. Kumar R.No.1926, Infraprojects Ltd., 19Th Floor, 16A, Andheri Industrial Air India Bldg., Vs. Estate, Nariman Point, Veera Desasi Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacj9161C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai, D.R
Section 37(1)Section 69C

case and law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs.6,88,31,236/- on account of bogus purchases of cement as unexplained expenditure and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding disallowance to Rs.1,03,24,685/- (being 15% of Rs.6 ... account of bogus purchase of cement as unexplained expenditure. On facts and circumstances of the case & law on the subject, the addition made be deleted. 2. The appellant craves leave to add/modify, delete the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. The issue raised in ground