← 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

Amardeep Singh Arora, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 20(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1339/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

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.1339/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Amandeep Singh Arora Acit-20(1) बनाम/ C/O. V. Vaidyanathan & Co. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug F-36, Sitaram Building, Palton Road Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai-400 001. Pan/Gir No. Adlpa-1611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vaidyanathan Venkataraman-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar -Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/12/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vaidyanathan Venkataraman-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar -Ld.DR
Section 143(3)

concern namely M/s Best Eyes was assessed u/s 143(3) on 31/12/2009 wherein it was saddled with addition of Rs.7.40 Lacs on account of bogus purchase. The same is the subject matter of present appeal before us. 3.2 The addition stem from the fact that the assessee reflected credit balance ... payments were made in that year. However, not convinced, the difference of Rs.7.40 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee as bogus purchases. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) upon perusal of relevant account statements, noted that the said the corresponding sales were recorded by the said party

Vemb Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 11 (3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2518/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

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.2518/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) M/S. Vemb Lifestyle Private Limited Acit-11(3)(2) बनाम/ D-13, Ansa Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhavan Saki Vihar Road, Saki Naka Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072. Pan/Gir No. Aaccv-0704-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Chintamani Dingankar-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/11/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chintamani Dingankar-Ld.Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

information from DCIT–CC-4(3), Mumbai, it was 3 Assessment Year 2013-14 alleged that the assessee had obtained bogus accommodation entries of bogus purchases aggregating to Rs.2,949.09 Lacs from 4 entities. The details of the same has already been extracted in Para 5.1 of the assessment order ... DGIT(Inv.) in case of Balaji Group on 30/04/2013 wherein incriminating evidences were seized which indicated procurement of accommodation entries of bogus purchases. The entire bogus transactions were admitted by Shri Jagdish Mundra in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4). Accordingly, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee

JCIT)OSD), Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Hicon Construction, Mumbai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1119/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

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.1119/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1120/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jcit(Osd) M/S. Hicons Construction Central Circle-5(1) B-201, Leo Apartments बनाम/ Room No.1926, 19Th Floor 24Th Road, Khar(W) Vs. Air India Bldg., Nariman Point Mumbai-400 052. Mumbai-400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaefh-3281-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh -Ld.Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/12/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh -Ld.Sr. DR
Section 144

common order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [CIT(A)], dated 28/11/2018 which has restricted the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to 25%. 2. None appeared for assessee at the time of hearing and no valid adjournment application was on record. However, we find that ... assessed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 19/02/2015. In the said order, the assessee was saddled with certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases aggregating to Rs.288.45 Lacs from two entities, the details of which have already been extracted in para-3 of the assessment order. The assessee

JCIT (OSD) Circle-15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Esp (Asia) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4066/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

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.4066/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jcit(Osd)-Circle-15(1)(1) M/S. Esp (Asia) Pvt.Ltd. Room No.470, 4Th Floor बनाम/ 10,13, Neco Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sector-11, Cbd Belapur Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Navi Mumbai-400 706. Pan/Gir No. Aabce-6484-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon-Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 26/11/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/11/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon-Ld.DR
Section 69C

Appeals)-24, Mumbai [CIT(A)], Appeal No.CIT(A)-24/DCIT-15(1)/IT- 682/2016-17 dated 25/03/2019 which has restricted the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to 12.5%. 2. None appeared for assessee at the time of hearing and no valid adjournment application was on record. However, the material ... reassessment proceedings for the year under consideration pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra which indicated that the assessee availed bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs.14.38 Lacs from two entities. The detail of the same has already been extracted in para-5.1 of the assessment order