← 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

Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 Ludhiana, Ludhiana, Punjab

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 646/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.609/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Circle-1 Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Ludhiana – 141001 Kohara, Jandiali Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.646/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Ludhiana – 141001 Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) A/W Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) a/w Dr
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

r.w.s 144B of the Act on 21-03-2024. The sole issue that arises for our consideration is addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.29.69 Crores as made by Ld. AO in the assessment order for purchases made by the assessee from four parties as tabulated on Page

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 609/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.609/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Circle-1 Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Ludhiana – 141001 Kohara, Jandiali Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.646/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Ludhiana – 141001 Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) A/W Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) a/w Dr
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

r.w.s 144B of the Act on 21-03-2024. The sole issue that arises for our consideration is addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.29.69 Crores as made by Ld. AO in the assessment order for purchases made by the assessee from four parties as tabulated on Page

Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana Punjab vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Ludhiana

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 596/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.530/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jcit (In Situ) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Ludhiana – 141001 Kohara, Jandiali Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.596/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Ludhiana – 141001 Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) A/W Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) a/w Dr
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

r.w.s 144B of the Act on 21-03-2024. The sole issue that arises for our consideration is addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.58.68 Crores as made by Ld. AO in the assessment order for purchases made by the assessee from eight parties as tabulated on Page

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in Situ) Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 530/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.530/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jcit (In Situ) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Ludhiana – 141001 Kohara, Jandiali Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.596/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Ludhiana – 141001 Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) A/W Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) a/w Dr
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

r.w.s 144B of the Act on 21-03-2024. The sole issue that arises for our consideration is addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.58.68 Crores as made by Ld. AO in the assessment order for purchases made by the assessee from eight parties as tabulated on Page

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jind vs. Vikas Jain, Jind

In the result, the assessee succeeds in its cross-objection

ITA 838/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.838/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer Shri Vikas Jain बनाम/ Ward 1 Nav Bharat Steel & General Industries Vs. Jind-126102. Indira Bazar, Jind-126102. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeqpj-3689-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co No. 28/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No.838/Chandi/2024) Shri Vikas Jain Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Nav Bharat Steel & General Industries Ward 1 Vs. Indira Bazar, Jind-126102. Jind-126102. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeqpj-3689-E (Cross Objector) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69C

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,67,89,408/- made by the faceless assessment unit on account of bogus purchase made by the assessing of Rs.7,38,35,970/- and commission paid by the assessee at Rs.29,53,438/- totalling to Rs.7 ... facts of the case in making addition of Rs.7,67,89,408/- u/s 69C of IT Act treating such purchases as bogus purchases without rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of IT Act. The assessee initially filed application u/r 27 of ITAT Rules