← 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

Nikita Sanjay Sheth, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(1), Thane

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

ITA 3777/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannumrs. Nikita Sanjay Sheth Income Tax Officer Prop. M/S. Nikita Enterprises Ward 3(1) C/A, 301, Sankalp Pool Thane Vs. Nr. Manisha Nagar, Kalwa Thane 400605 Pan – Ayqps4343G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Devendra Jain Revenue By: Ms. N. Hemalatha Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2017 O R D E R Per G.S. Pannu, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Thane Dated 17.03.2017 For A.Y. 2009-10. 2. In This Appeal The Only Issue Is With Regard To The Addition Of `3,02,255/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Bogus Purchases From Two Parties. 3. The Relevant Discussion In The Orders Of The Authorities Below Reveals That Based On The Information From The Sales Tax Department Of Government Of Maharashtra As Also The Verification Exercises Carried Out, Purchases Made By The Assessee Of `3,02,255/- From Two Parties, Namely Blue Nile Enterprises & Pooja Corporation Have Been Held To Be Bogus. Accordingly The Said Amount Has Been Added To The Returned Income. 4. Before Me The Assessee Has Contended That Addition, If Any, Be Made To The Extent Of The Profit Attributable To The Bogus Purchase & Not The Entire Purchases Itself.

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

this appeal the only issue is with regard to the addition of `3,02,255/- made by the AO on account of bogus purchases from two parties. 3. The relevant discussion in the orders of the authorities below reveals that based on the information from the Sales Tax Department ... returned income. 4. Before me the assessee has contended that addition, if any, be made to the extent of the profit attributable to the bogus purchase and not the entire purchases itself. 2 Mrs. Nikita Sanjay Sheth 5. Of course, the learned D.R. has supported the stand of the lower

Vardhman Remedies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6773/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), बनाम/ M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan H-405, Gokul Residency, Vs. M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.142/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1004/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., 13(3)(2), H-405, Gokul Residency, Aayakar Bhavan 6773/M/2016 & –Co.142/Mu/2017 Near Samta Nagar, Vs. M.K. Road Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

Accordingly, we dismiss this ground. 3. The sole issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of Rs.6,01,430/- being 10% of bogus purchases of Rs.60,14,350/- by ld. CIT(A) as against the 100% addition made by the AO u/s 69C of the Income ... after receiving information from the DGIT(Inv) who in turn was informed by Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee has made bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.60,14,350/-from hawala parties without 6773/M/2016 and –CO.142/Mu/2017 actual delivery of goods. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee

Vardhman Remedies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6772/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), बनाम/ M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan H-405, Gokul Residency, Vs. M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.142/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1004/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., 13(3)(2), H-405, Gokul Residency, Aayakar Bhavan 6773/M/2016 & –Co.142/Mu/2017 Near Samta Nagar, Vs. M.K. Road Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

Accordingly, we dismiss this ground. 3. The sole issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of Rs.6,01,430/- being 10% of bogus purchases of Rs.60,14,350/- by ld. CIT(A) as against the 100% addition made by the AO u/s 69C of the Income ... after receiving information from the DGIT(Inv) who in turn was informed by Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee has made bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.60,14,350/-from hawala parties without 6773/M/2016 and –CO.142/Mu/2017 actual delivery of goods. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee

Vardhaman Remedies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1495/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), बनाम/ M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan H-405, Gokul Residency, Vs. M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.142/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1004/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., 13(3)(2), H-405, Gokul Residency, Aayakar Bhavan 6773/M/2016 & –Co.142/Mu/2017 Near Samta Nagar, Vs. M.K. Road Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

Accordingly, we dismiss this ground. 3. The sole issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of Rs.6,01,430/- being 10% of bogus purchases of Rs.60,14,350/- by ld. CIT(A) as against the 100% addition made by the AO u/s 69C of the Income ... after receiving information from the DGIT(Inv) who in turn was informed by Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee has made bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.60,14,350/-from hawala parties without 6773/M/2016 and –CO.142/Mu/2017 actual delivery of goods. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee

Vardhman Remedies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(3)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1494/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), बनाम/ M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan H-405, Gokul Residency, Vs. M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.142/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1004/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., 13(3)(2), H-405, Gokul Residency, Aayakar Bhavan 6773/M/2016 & –Co.142/Mu/2017 Near Samta Nagar, Vs. M.K. Road Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

Accordingly, we dismiss this ground. 3. The sole issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of Rs.6,01,430/- being 10% of bogus purchases of Rs.60,14,350/- by ld. CIT(A) as against the 100% addition made by the AO u/s 69C of the Income ... after receiving information from the DGIT(Inv) who in turn was informed by Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee has made bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.60,14,350/-from hawala parties without 6773/M/2016 and –CO.142/Mu/2017 actual delivery of goods. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vardhman Remedies P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), बनाम/ M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan H-405, Gokul Residency, Vs. M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.142/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No. 1004/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Ltd., R.No.227,Aayakar Bhavan Vs. H-405, Gokul Residency, M.K. Road Near Samta Nagar, Mumbai 400020 Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S.Vardhman Remedies Pvt Ltd., 13(3)(2), H-405, Gokul Residency, Aayakar Bhavan 6773/M/2016 & –Co.142/Mu/2017 Near Samta Nagar, Vs. M.K. Road Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400101 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

Accordingly, we dismiss this ground. 3. The sole issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of Rs.6,01,430/- being 10% of bogus purchases of Rs.60,14,350/- by ld. CIT(A) as against the 100% addition made by the AO u/s 69C of the Income ... after receiving information from the DGIT(Inv) who in turn was informed by Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee has made bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.60,14,350/-from hawala parties without 6773/M/2016 and –CO.142/Mu/2017 actual delivery of goods. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee