← 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

Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5569/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5567/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Ita No. 5568/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 5569/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Gk House-187A, Flat No. 102, Central Circle-11, Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 5540/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit, Vs Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11, Gk House-187A, Flat No. 102, New Delhi Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccg4538J Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement:21.01.2021 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee & One Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Xxxi, New Delhi Dated 28.08.2012. 2. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Common, They Were Heard Together. Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 3. In Ita No. 5567/Del/2012 For The Ay 2008-09, Following Effective Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 36

perverse to record. (iv) That the Ld. CIT(A) had further erred in law to confirm the addition of Rs. 375268811/- alleged as bogus purchase without support of any cogent reason. The reason given by CIT(A) not to agree with the submission of assessee are imaginary in nature ... legs to stand the test of judicial scrutiny. That the impugned order passed by Ld. C.I.T. (A) confirming additions on account of alleged bogus purchases is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and the well-established principles of laws. The conclusion drawn by C.I.T. (A) and confirmed

Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5568/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5567/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Ita No. 5568/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 5569/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Gk House-187A, Flat No. 102, Central Circle-11, Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 5540/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit, Vs Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11, Gk House-187A, Flat No. 102, New Delhi Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccg4538J Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement:21.01.2021 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee & One Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Xxxi, New Delhi Dated 28.08.2012. 2. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Common, They Were Heard Together. Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 3. In Ita No. 5567/Del/2012 For The Ay 2008-09, Following Effective Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 36

perverse to record. (iv) That the Ld. CIT(A) had further erred in law to confirm the addition of Rs. 375268811/- alleged as bogus purchase without support of any cogent reason. The reason given by CIT(A) not to agree with the submission of assessee are imaginary in nature ... legs to stand the test of judicial scrutiny. That the impugned order passed by Ld. C.I.T. (A) confirming additions on account of alleged bogus purchases is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and the well-established principles of laws. The conclusion drawn by C.I.T. (A) and confirmed

Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5567/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5567/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Ita No. 5568/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 5569/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Gk House-187A, Flat No. 102, Central Circle-11, Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 5540/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit, Vs Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11, Gk House-187A, Flat No. 102, New Delhi Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccg4538J Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement:21.01.2021 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee & One Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Xxxi, New Delhi Dated 28.08.2012. 2. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Common, They Were Heard Together. Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 3. In Ita No. 5567/Del/2012 For The Ay 2008-09, Following Effective Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 36

perverse to record. (iv) That the Ld. CIT(A) had further erred in law to confirm the addition of Rs. 375268811/- alleged as bogus purchase without support of any cogent reason. The reason given by CIT(A) not to agree with the submission of assessee are imaginary in nature ... legs to stand the test of judicial scrutiny. That the impugned order passed by Ld. C.I.T. (A) confirming additions on account of alleged bogus purchases is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and the well-established principles of laws. The conclusion drawn by C.I.T. (A) and confirmed

Motion Drivetronics Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 828/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Motion Drivetronics Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of El-108, Near Telco Electronic Vs. Income Tax-15(2)(3), Zone, Ttc Industrial Area, Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahape, Maharshi Karve Rd., New Marine New Mumbai-400709. Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaecm 3508 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Motion Drivetronics Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-15(2)(3), Vs. El-108, Electronic Zone, M.I.D.C., Room No. 360, Aayakar Ttc Industrial Area, Mahape, Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Rd., Navi Mumbai-400709. New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaecm 3508 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

erred in confirming disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of purchases amounting of Rs.624,920/- being 12.5% of total alleged bogus purchases of Rs.4,999,365/- without making any independent inquiry by treating the purchases as bogus in nature on mere suspicion that the parties were listed on website ... circumstances of the case, and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance made by the Assessing Officer even of those alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,293,114/-which were towards fixed assets and were never debited to profit and loss account. ITA No. 828 & 1876/M/2016