← 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

Thakur Buildcon (P) Ltd., Rajsamand vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajsamand

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s ground stands partly allowed

ITA 345/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.345/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Thakur Buildcon (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer-Ward-1 C/O. Rajendra Jain Advocate Rajsamand बनाम/ 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Rajasthan-313 324. Vs. 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7930-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.346/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-Ward-1 Thakur Buildcon (P) Ltd. बनाम/ Rajsamand Thakurgarh N.H. 8 Rajasthan-313 324. Sevali, Rajsamand Vs. Rajasthan-313 324. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7930-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Yadav - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Income Tax Act, 1961. In the said assessment, the assessee was saddled with certain peak additions of Rs.216.77 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases and the same is the sole subject matter of cross- appeals before us since Ld. CIT(A) has granted partial relief to the assessee ... factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey / unorganized market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases, which Ld.CIT(A) has rightly done so. However, keeping in view the fact that the assessee had already reflected GP rate of more than

M/S. Anil M. Rakshe (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO- 21(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 189/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Pandhe Infracons Acit Cc 1(3), Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, 157 Railway Lines Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. Sushila Apartments, M.K. Road, Solapur, Mumbai - 400020 Maharashtra – 413 001 Pan: Aaecp 9086A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, M/S. Pandhe Infracons Central Circle 1(3), Pvt. Ltd., 905, 9Th Floor, 157 Railway Lines Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. Sushila Apartments, Old C.G.O. Bldg. Solapur, (Annexe), Maharashtra – 413 001 Pan: Aaecp 9086A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Haria, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Leena Srivastava, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Leena Srivastava, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

raised by the assessee is against the order of ld CIT(A) partly sustaining the addition of Rs.5,09,09,688/- being 15% of bogus purchases of Rs.33,93,97,917/- as against the 100% disallowance made by the AO. The Revenue has also come in appeal against the deletion ... bogus purchases by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The facts in brief are that assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2010 declaring income of Rs.16,09,04,410/- which was later on revised on 16.11.2011 declaring the same income. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny

Kumbh Gems, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-23(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 767/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.767/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Kumbh Gems Acit-Circle-23(2) Fw-3150, G-Block Room No.122, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ Bharat Diamond Bourse Tardeo Road Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400 051. Pan/Gir No.-Aadfk-5586 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1078/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit-Circle-23(2) Kumbh Gems Room No.122, Matru Mandir, Fw-3150, G-Block बनाम/ Tardeo Road Bharat Diamond Bourse Vs. Mumbai-400 007. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aadfk-5586-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Deven Kapadia-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh -Ld.Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33 [CIT(A)], Appeal No.CIT(A)-33/Rg.23/48/17-18 dated 12/12/2018 which has restricted the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to 30%. The assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of addition to the extent of 30% whereas the revenue is aggrieved by partial deletion

ACIT Circle- 15 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S D G Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1773/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, M/S. D.G. Infrastructure Circle -15(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.483A, 4Th Floor, A-207 Punit Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, Premises Chs, Vs. M.K. Road, Plot No.D-11, Mumbai - 400020 Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe Navi Mumbai, Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaccd0745L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit -12(2)(1), M/S. Disha Dynamic Room No.142F/262, Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, D-6, Surjit Sangam Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chsl, Churchgate, Mathuradas Road, Mumbai - 400020 Kandivali West, Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aadcd9697E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Revenue has challenged the order of Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition on account of bogus purchases to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchases as against the addition of 25% made by the AO. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... however, the AO was not satisfied with the information and explanation of the assessee and added a sum of 25% of the said bogus purchases by treating the same as non genuine thereby making an addition of Rs.10,48,758/- to the income of the assessee in 3 ITA No.1773/M/2019

ACIT, Circle-23(2), Mumbai vs. Kumbh Gems, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1078/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.767/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Kumbh Gems Acit-Circle-23(2) Fw-3150, G-Block Room No.122, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ Bharat Diamond Bourse Tardeo Road Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400 051. Pan/Gir No.-Aadfk-5586 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1078/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit-Circle-23(2) Kumbh Gems Room No.122, Matru Mandir, Fw-3150, G-Block बनाम/ Tardeo Road Bharat Diamond Bourse Vs. Mumbai-400 007. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aadfk-5586-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Deven Kapadia-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh -Ld.Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33 [CIT(A)], Appeal No.CIT(A)-33/Rg.23/48/17-18 dated 12/12/2018 which has restricted the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to 30%. The assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of addition to the extent of 30% whereas the revenue is aggrieved by partial deletion