← 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

Pravin Thanmal Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 13(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4162/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4162/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Pravin Thanmal Shah Huf Asst. Cit(A), Range-32(2), बनाम/ 202, Shreenath Krupa, C-11, Room No. 308, Pratyaksha Kar 5Th Carter Road, Borivali (E), Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 066 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaghp 2293 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 10.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Wherein Reopening As Well As 100% Addition For The Bogus Purchases Has Been Challenged.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 133(6)Section 234B

Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This is an Appeal by the Assessee wherein reopening as well as 100% addition for the bogus purchases has been challenged. 2. The Assessing Officer in this case has made 100% addition on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.9,61,350/- for two parties ... find that in this case the sales have not been doubted. It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision

Bhaveshwar Traders, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2730/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2730/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Bhaveshwar Traders Astt. Cit-31(1), बनाम/ Gala No. 15, Guffa Road, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Opp. Jain Mandir, Jogeshwari (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 060 Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifb 5683 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Mistry ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 29.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 28.12.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. The Issue Raised Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Disallowance Of 100% Of Bogus Purchase, Amounting To Rs.22,39,511/-. The Assessee Has Also Raised Ground Challenging The Reopening Of This Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh MistryFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. The issue raised is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance of 100% of bogus purchase, amounting to Rs.22,39,511/-. The assessee has also raised ground challenging the reopening of this case. 2 Bhaveshwar Traders vs. Astt. CIT 3. In this ... Rs.23,11,990/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the office of the DGIT(Inv) to the effect that the assessee has made bogus purchases and had taken accommodation bills of entry. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of the assessee after recording reasons. The assessee was found

ITO WD 3(5), Kalyan vs. Rajesh Ambalal Shah, Kalyan

In the result, the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3132/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Rajesh Ambalal Shah Ito-3(5) 28, Tapasya Hsg Scty, 2Nd Floor, Rani Vs. Above Icici Bank, G.M. Manison, Murbad Road, Pestom Sagar, Road Kalyan (W) Chembur, Kalyan-421301 Mumbai-400089. Pan No. Anlps6347J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-3(5) Shri Rajesh Ambalal 2Nd Floor, Rani Manison, Shah Vs. Murbad Road Kalyan A-504, Sanskardi (W) Apartment, Lal Kalyan-421301 Chauky, Agra Road, Kalyan (W)-421301 Pan No. Anlps6347J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajesh Ambalal Shah Ito-3(5) 28, Tapasya Hsg Scty, 2Nd Floor, Rani Vs. Above Icici Bank, G.M. Manison, Murbad Road, Pestom Sagar, Road Kalyan (W) Chembur, Kalyan-421301 Mumbai-400089

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garadia, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

case are that the Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from the following parties: Sl. Name of the entry Maharashtra AY Amount in No. provider VAT No. the bills taken by the assessee ... assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has held that (i) in the AY 2009-10, the bogus purchases are of Rs.71.25 lakhs out of total purchases of Rs.1.93 crore which amount to 37% and in the AY 2011-12 the said purchases

Rajesh Ambalal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(5), Kalyan

In the result, the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2320/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Rajesh Ambalal Shah Ito-3(5) 28, Tapasya Hsg Scty, 2Nd Floor, Rani Vs. Above Icici Bank, G.M. Manison, Murbad Road, Pestom Sagar, Road Kalyan (W) Chembur, Kalyan-421301 Mumbai-400089. Pan No. Anlps6347J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-3(5) Shri Rajesh Ambalal 2Nd Floor, Rani Manison, Shah Vs. Murbad Road Kalyan A-504, Sanskardi (W) Apartment, Lal Kalyan-421301 Chauky, Agra Road, Kalyan (W)-421301 Pan No. Anlps6347J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajesh Ambalal Shah Ito-3(5) 28, Tapasya Hsg Scty, 2Nd Floor, Rani Vs. Above Icici Bank, G.M. Manison, Murbad Road, Pestom Sagar, Road Kalyan (W) Chembur, Kalyan-421301 Mumbai-400089

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garadia, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

case are that the Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from the following parties: Sl. Name of the entry Maharashtra AY Amount in No. provider VAT No. the bills taken by the assessee ... assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has held that (i) in the AY 2009-10, the bogus purchases are of Rs.71.25 lakhs out of total purchases of Rs.1.93 crore which amount to 37% and in the AY 2011-12 the said purchases

Axis Realty P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4110/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सुं./I.T.A. No. 4110/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Axis Realty Private Limited, Dy. Cit-9(1), A-501, Gladdioia, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिाम/ Old Hanuman Road, Next To Tilak Mumbai-400 020 Vs. School, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 057 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No. Aadca 3025 D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 69C

issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) restricting the addition by applying profit @ 40% of the bogus purchases u/s. 69C of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of development and construction ... Maharashtra Sales Tax Department that they are providing bogus bills for purchase to the beneficiaries. The assessee being one of the beneficiaries has shown bogus purchases from following parties: 27730562486V REVIKA TRADE IMPEX PVT AADCR3729H 2010-11 227,056 LTD 27650564276V JINDAL STEEL CORPORATION ALEPB6133C 2010-11 564,370 27870543397V