← 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

Ramila Diam Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-5, Mumbai

Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2340/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2340/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2341/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2342/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Ramila Diam Pvt. Ltd. The Pr. Commissioner Of B-401, 4 Th Floor, Anand Building, Income Tax-5, Tirupati Apartments, Bhulabhai बिाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Desai Road, Mumbai-400 026 Karve Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaecr8201P अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M Subramanian, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri K. Madhusudan, Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri M Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

period relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer estimated the Gross Profit (GP) at the rate of 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases/ accommodation entries from Bhanwarlal Jain. However, the Assessing Officer reduced the Gross Profit (4%) already declared by the assessee and made addition of difference ... decided on 11.02.2019 has held that where the sales are not disputed by the Revenue, it is only profit element embedded in the bogus purchases that has to be brought to tax. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Paramshakti

Manju Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 45(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8275/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Manju Sharma, Vs Ito, Wz-43B, Meenakshi Garden, Ward-45(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aatps2170A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishnan Sampath, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.09.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-15, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Proprietor Of M/S Eastern Galaxy Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Export Of Handicrafts & Decorative Items. She Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.11.2014 Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.47,10,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass With The Reason That There Is “Large Increase In Sundry Creditors With Respect To Turnover As Compared To Preceding Year.”

For Appellant: Shri Krishnan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144ASection 68

engaged in job work of dyeing of fabrics were hawala dealers who had issued bogus bills and the AO treated the aforesaid purchases as bogus purchases and accordingly addition was made to the total income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that without purchase of materials ... profit element would meet ends of justice and accordingly he directed the AO to estimate the profit at 17.5% of the total alleged bogus purchases and, thereafter, to delete the balance addition. The Tribunal concurred with the said view. The Hon’ble High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal