← 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

S.N. Malhotra & Sons, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-30, Delhi

ITA 834/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 832/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 833/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 834/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 M/S S. N. Malhotra & Sons, Vs Dcit, 760, Ramesh Nagar, Central Circle-30, New Delhi-110015 New Delhi110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfs6724N Assessee By : Sh. Dhani Ram Anthwal, Adv. & Sh. Rakesh, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 832, 833 & 834/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020- 21 Arise Against The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1071341134(1), 1071341700(1) & 1071341990(1) All Dated 18.12.2024, In Proceedings U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhani Ram Anthwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153C

emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s instant three appeals raise an identical issue of S. N. Malhotra & Sons disallowance of bogus purchases made by both the learned lower authorities; involving varying sums, in their respective assessments as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being ... raised by the assessee emerged therefrom is that whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in applying Gross Profit (‘GP’) @ 20% of the said bogus purchases of Rs.43,16,444/-. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assesseeappellant filed its Income Tax Return

S.N. Malhotra & Sons, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

ITA 833/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 832/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 833/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 834/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 M/S S. N. Malhotra & Sons, Vs Dcit, 760, Ramesh Nagar, Central Circle-30, New Delhi-110015 New Delhi110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfs6724N Assessee By : Sh. Dhani Ram Anthwal, Adv. & Sh. Rakesh, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 832, 833 & 834/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020- 21 Arise Against The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1071341134(1), 1071341700(1) & 1071341990(1) All Dated 18.12.2024, In Proceedings U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhani Ram Anthwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153C

emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s instant three appeals raise an identical issue of S. N. Malhotra & Sons disallowance of bogus purchases made by both the learned lower authorities; involving varying sums, in their respective assessments as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being ... raised by the assessee emerged therefrom is that whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in applying Gross Profit (‘GP’) @ 20% of the said bogus purchases of Rs.43,16,444/-. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assesseeappellant filed its Income Tax Return

S.N. Malhotra & Sons, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

ITA 832/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 832/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 833/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 834/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 M/S S. N. Malhotra & Sons, Vs Dcit, 760, Ramesh Nagar, Central Circle-30, New Delhi-110015 New Delhi110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfs6724N Assessee By : Sh. Dhani Ram Anthwal, Adv. & Sh. Rakesh, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 832, 833 & 834/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020- 21 Arise Against The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1071341134(1), 1071341700(1) & 1071341990(1) All Dated 18.12.2024, In Proceedings U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhani Ram Anthwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153C

emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s instant three appeals raise an identical issue of S. N. Malhotra & Sons disallowance of bogus purchases made by both the learned lower authorities; involving varying sums, in their respective assessments as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being ... raised by the assessee emerged therefrom is that whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in applying Gross Profit (‘GP’) @ 20% of the said bogus purchases of Rs.43,16,444/-. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assesseeappellant filed its Income Tax Return

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Saffron Green International Private Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 958/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.958/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Saffron Green International Pvt. बनाम/ 2(1)(3), Surat, Room No.221, Ltd. Shop No.3008, Shree Mahavir Vs. 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Textiles Puna Kumbhariya Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawcs 3137 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K. Kapadia, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 16.07.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short, ‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act On 21.03.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.5,70,70,621/- On Account Of 100% Bogus Purchase To 0.25% Of The Bogus Purchases & Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Ignoring The Facts That These Purchases Are Sham Transactions Fabricated Through Bogus Paper Concerns Of M/S. Savitri Trading Company & Mohammed Javed Mohammed Jabir Momin Which Were Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries.

Section 147Section 250Section 250(2)

erred in restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.5,70,70,621/- on account of 100% bogus purchase to 0.25% of the bogus purchases and allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the facts that these purchases are sham transactions fabricated through bogus paper concerns ... erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee in restricting the addition made of 100% of the bogus purchases to 0.25% of the bogus purchases without appreciating the finding of inquiry that M/s. Savitri Trading Company and Mohammed Javed Mohammed Jabir Momin has no real business activities rather it only