← All Phrases

“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), cited in 1,465 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus purchases

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported 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.

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court
391
citing judgments

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

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.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

Income Tax Officer-4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Manek Metal (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4264/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.4264/M/2017 & 4265/M/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ito-4(2)(4) बिधम/ M/S. Manek Metal (I) P. Ltd. Room No.647, 6Th Floor, 262, K-1, Inside Mehta Vs. Estate, Thakur Dhwar, Main Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 2Nd Khattar Gali-2 Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm8872A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Drop Singh Meena (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 07.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita. No.4264/M/2017:- 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 07.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Drop Singh Meena (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 37(1)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases of Rs,1,02,60,150/- u/s 37(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances ... received on 12.03.2013 from the O/o Dy. DIT (Inv.), Unit-1(2), Mumbai in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken the bogus purchase entries from the eight entities in sum of Rs.39,78,97,166/- for the F.Y.s 2005-06 to 2012-13. The discrepancy in purchases

Silburn Papers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 3552/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Silburn Papers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Bm-125, West Shalimar Bagh, Ward-23(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aapcs5300R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16Th March, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.1,43,88,769/- As Against Addition Of Rs.1,55,39,870/- Made By The Ao By Directing The Ao To Adopt The Gp Rate Of 25% As Against 30% Taken By Him. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Wholesale Trading In Paper, Paper Board, Corrugated Board, Binding Material & Packing Material, Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 4Th September

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 145(3)

also not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. Relying on various decisions, he restricted the GP rate to 25% of the bogus purchases of Rs.5,75,55,703/- thereby giving a relief of Rs.11,55,101/-. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee