← 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

ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1306/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1306/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Ito Maheshwari Sales Corporation बनाम/ Ward-4(2)(3) C-111, Ganesh Meridin V/S. Ahmedabad Nr.Sola Bridge, Sola Ahmedabad-380 058 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aalfm 4917 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 11/04/2025, Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Ito Vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 68

Taxman 661 held that merely on suspicion bases on information received from sales Tax authority, assessing officer could not make addition on account of bogus purchases without carrying out independent enquiry and affording opportunity to Assessee to convert statements made by seller. The Bombay High Court in the case ... Assessing Officer in the absence of any inquiry made by him to bring on record any evidence to prove his allegation of bogus purchase and held that the mere reliance by the Assessing Officer on the statement of two persons made before the sale tax department to cross examine whom

Prem Tube Co. Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 20(1), Delhi

ITA 6005/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6004/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 6005/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Prem Tube Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Pranshu Goel, Chartered Accountant, Ward-20(1), 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccp8284C Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 6004 & 6005/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079370154(1) & 1079370333(1) Both Dated 07.08.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 37Section 68

contentions in principle that the impugned purchases have rightly been treated as bogus. 5. Next comes equally important aspect of quantification of the impugned bogus purchases disallowance wherein the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s entire purchases in both these assessment years. The tribunal is of the considered ... Learned counsel lastly argues that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in adding the impugned bogus purchases claimed as unexplained cash credits. The Revenue could hardly dispute that this is an expenditure claim rather than credit entries in the assessee’s books of account forming

Prem Tube Co. Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 20(1), Delhi

ITA 6004/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6004/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 6005/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Prem Tube Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Pranshu Goel, Chartered Accountant, Ward-20(1), 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccp8284C Assessee By: Sh. Aditya Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order These Assessee’S Twin Appeals In Ita Nos. 6004 & 6005/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079370154(1) & 1079370333(1) Both Dated 07.08.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 37Section 68

contentions in principle that the impugned purchases have rightly been treated as bogus. 5. Next comes equally important aspect of quantification of the impugned bogus purchases disallowance wherein the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s entire purchases in both these assessment years. The tribunal is of the considered ... Learned counsel lastly argues that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in adding the impugned bogus purchases claimed as unexplained cash credits. The Revenue could hardly dispute that this is an expenditure claim rather than credit entries in the assessee’s books of account forming