← 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

ITO Ward-1, Palghar vs. M/S. Arya Process Equipment, Palghar

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

ITA 5044/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito Ward – 1, बनाम/ M/S Arya Process Palghar Range, Palghar, Equipment, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Shree Shanta Durga Bidco Road, Complex, Ram Krishna Palghar - 401404 Nagar, Mahim Road, Dist. Palghar - 401404 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalfa3887G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Shri Sanjay Sethi, Dr Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of 16/02/2021 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 18/02/2021 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Thecommissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, M/S Arya Process Equipment Thane, Passed U/S. 143 (3) R.W.S. 147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 133Section 143Section 148

Asian Steel of Rs. 1,29,375/-.But As per the information received from Sales Tax Department that, the assessee has obtained the bogus purchase bills from the hawala traders. Therefore, the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice ... High Court and coordinate bench decisions of Hon’ble Tribunal and has restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of bogus purchases. The Ld. DR has supported the order of the AO and could not controvert the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) with any new cogent evidence

ITO, Ward-1(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vishvakarma Fabricators Prop. Ashwin A. Panchal, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5047/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5046/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं. 5047/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3),Thane, Room No.10, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) – 400 064 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Vishvakarma Fabricators Prop.Ashwin A. Panchal, B/2/402 Swastik Residency, G.B.Road, Kasarvadavali, Kavesar, Thane 400 607 Pan: Afzpa6269D ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that in assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer made addition on account of bogus purchases. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer levied penalty ... Rs.38,044/- in assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.61,309/- in assessment year 2011-12 on addition resulting from bogus purchases. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that though the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the monitory limit prescribed by CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019, dated

ITO, Ward-1(3), Thane vs. M/S. Vishvakarma Fabricators Prop. Ashwin A. Panchal, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5046/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5046/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं. 5047/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3),Thane, Room No.10, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) – 400 064 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Vishvakarma Fabricators Prop.Ashwin A. Panchal, B/2/402 Swastik Residency, G.B.Road, Kasarvadavali, Kavesar, Thane 400 607 Pan: Afzpa6269D ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that in assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer made addition on account of bogus purchases. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer levied penalty ... Rs.38,044/- in assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.61,309/- in assessment year 2011-12 on addition resulting from bogus purchases. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that though the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the monitory limit prescribed by CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019, dated

ITO19(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Suresh Chandmal Parmar, Vasai

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

ITA 5045/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleincome Tax Officer - बनाम/ Shri Suresh Chandmal 19 (3) (4), Parmar, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Room No. 210, 21, Oberay Indstrial Matru Mandir, Estate, Chinchpada, Tardeo Road, Vasai, Mumbai - 400007 Thane - 401201 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpp3109L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Shri Sanjay Sethi, Dr Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of 16/02/2021 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 17/02/2021 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Shri Suresh Chandmal Parmar Mumbai, Passed U/S. 143 (3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 133Section 143Section 148Section 28Section 69

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, id. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to @ 12.5% of total bogus purchases and computing the profit for the purpose of section 28 of the IT. Act, 1961 taking in to consideration the bogus bills against which ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to @ 12.5% of total bogus purchases in presuming that the purchase have been made from unknown parties whereas bills have been received from hawala dealer?" 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lipi Data System Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5028/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Acit- 3 (2) (1), M/S Lipi Data System बनाम/ Room No. 674, 6 Th Floor, Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Mittal Chambers, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0916F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी ओर से / Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr Appellant By : प्रत्यथी की ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of 09/02/2021 Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of 11/02/2021 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -8 M/S Lipi Data System Ltd. Mumbai, Passed U/S. 271 (1) (C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 115Section 143Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

compliance the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details. The A.O. found that the assessee has obtained bogus purchases bills from the operators as per the information received from Sales Tax Department. The assessee was also served with the show cause notice ... observe that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the purchases, hence made an addition of Rs 1,21,25,460/- of bogus purchases and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act Rs 1,00,186/- and assessed the total income ofRs.9,84,47,320/and passed the order

ITO 33 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Ashok Kumar Shymlal Gupta, Mumbai

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

ITA 4023/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleincome Tax Officer - बनाम/ Shri Ashok Kumar 33 (1) (1), Shyamlal Gupta, Vs. Room No. 945, 9Th A/605, Millennium Floor, Kautilya Tower, Akurli Jai Bhuvan, C-41 To C-43, Durga Chs Ltd., G Block, Bandra Kurla Akurli Road, Kranti Complex, Bandra Nagar, Last Bust Stop, (East), Kandivali (East), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai - 400101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adypg5268P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of 08/02/2021 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 11/02/2021 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Shri Ashok Kumar Shyamlal Gupta Per Pavan Kumar Gadale: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 45, Mumbai, Passed U/S. 271 (1) (C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 133Section 142Section 144Section 148Section 271

Assessing Officer (AO) has received information from Sales Tax Department and Director General of Investigation, Mumbai (DGIT) (Inv.) that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills from 10 Hawala operaters/ entities aggregating to Rs. 2,01,06,486/-.Therefore, the A.O. has reason to believe that, the income has escaped ... order. The CIT(A) observed that the assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act with addition of 100% of bogus purchases as non-genuine. On appeal against the addition, the appellate authority has reduced the estimation @ 12.5% of bogus purchases. But the A.O. has levied the penalty

ACIT 21(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Zaverchand Damji Haria, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

ITA 3902/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3902/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit- 21(3) Shri Zaverchand Damji Haria Room No.209, 2Nd Floor बनाम 124, Ashish Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Parel Gokhale Road, Mumbai-400 025 / Vs. Mumbai-400 012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aalph-7225-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Chhangur Shrikant Chauhan-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 11/02/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 11/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Chhangur Shrikant Chauhan-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr.AR
Section 143(3)

Mumbai [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No.CIT(A)-33/Rg.21/696/2016-17 dated 13/03/2019 which has restricted the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to the extent of 12.5% by relying upon certain order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for same year. 2 Shri Zaverchand ... certain information from Sales tax Department regarding procurement of bogus bills by assessee from suspicious dealers, it was alleged that the assessee made bogus purchases aggregating to Rs. 45.02 Lacs from two entities, the details of which has already been extracted in para 3.1 of the assessment order. Though

ACIT 18(3), Mumbai vs. Vikas J Solanki, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and the cross-objection filed by assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 3763/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3763 & 3764/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Acit 18(3) बिधम/ Vikas J. Solanki R. No.609, 6Th Floor, Earnest 101/102 D Plaza 3Rd Agiary Vs. House, Nariman Point, Lane Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Mumbai-400021. 400003. C. O. Nos. 54 & 55/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. Nos.3764/Mum/2019 & 3763/Mum/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2011-12) बिधम/ Vikas J. Solanki Acit 18(3) R. No.609, 6Th Floor, Earnest 101/102 D Plaza 3Rd Agiary Vs. House, Nariman Point, Lane Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Mumbai-400021. 400003. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps4197A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Achanliya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -29, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13. Ita. No.3763/Mum/2019 & C.O. No. 55/Mum/2020

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Achanliya (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 69C

facts and in the circumstances of the ease and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the amount of addition of alleged bogus purchases to 4% of such purchases and not deleting the addition amount in its entirety in the face of the overwhelming evidence provided ... assessee to prove the genuineness of the alleged bogus purchase transactions. CO Nos.55 & 54/M/2020 A.Y.2011-12 & 2012-13 4. The Respondent craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each of the above grounds without prejudice to one another

ITO 28(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vipul P Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 4437/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4437/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-28(3)(4) बिधम/ Shri Vipul P. Shah Room No.320, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Shop No. A-1, Industrial Vs. Tower, Vashi Railway House, Sector-21, Turbhe Station Complex Vashi, Navi Navi Mumbai-400705. Mumbai-4000703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacps5220L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.04.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - " (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.62,802/- Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act As The Penalty Was Levied On Quantum Additions Made On Account Of Bogus Purchases, A.Y.2010-11 Without Appreciating That The Onus Was On The Assessee To Establish The Genuineness Of Such Purchases By Producing Such Parties Before The Assessing Officer & The Assessee Failed To Discharge His Onus"?

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs.62,802/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the penalty was levied on quantum additions made on account of bogus purchases, A.Y.2010-11 without appreciating that the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of such purchases by producing such parties before the Assessing ... levied penalty. only after verifying the fact that the assessee evaded the taxes on quantum of additions made on account of bogus purchases and the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of such purchases"? (3) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case