← 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 27(2)(4), Navi Mumbai vs. Nilesh S. Mehta (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed to this extent

ITA 1724/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष Income Tax Officer-27(2)(4), Nilesh S Mehta (Huf) Room No.418, 4Th Floor, 8, Alka Building, फनधभ/ Tower No.6, Tilak Road, Vashi Rly.Stn.Complex, Ghatkopar-(E), Vs. Vashi, Mumbai-400077 Navi Mumbai-400703 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Cross-Objection No.199/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No.1724/Mum/2017 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nilesh S Mehta (Huf) Income Tax Officer-27(2)(4), 8, Alka Building, Tilak Road, Room No.418, 4Th Floor, फनधभ/ Ghatkopar-(E), Tower No.6, Mumbai-400077 Vashi Rly.Stn.Complex, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaehn5766N (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms.Ankita N SatraFor Respondent: Shri T A Khan
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

issue raised by the revenue is against the deletion of addition to the tune of Rs. 1,86,68,739/- being 98.22% of the bogus purchases sustaining thereby sustaining of Rs.3,38,326/- just 1.78% on account of bogus purchase as against 100% disallowance made by the AO. 3. Facts ... nature of business. I am of the considered opinion that gross profit rate, is to be considered to make addition on account of alleged bogus purchases from thirteen parties made by the assessee. For the year under consideration, the appellant has shown gross profit rate of 1.78% and total purchase

ITO 10(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Moonlight Electrical Contractors and Engineers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 7343/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 7343/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Ito-10(2)(4), Vs. M/S Moonlight Electrical R. No. 213, 2Nd Floor, Contractors & Engineering Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 B/3, Sona Udyog, Parsi Panchayat Road, Old Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcm7048L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 7344/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Dcit-10(2)(2), Vs. M/S Moonlight Electrical R. No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Contractors & Engineering Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 B/3, Sona Udyog, Parsi Panchayat Road, Old Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcm7048L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash S. Shetty (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Dated 29/09/2016 & 30/09/2016 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Subhash S. Shetty (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

treated as bogus. The AO after considering the submissions of the assessee and cases relied upon by the assessee, determined the amount of bogus purchase u/s 69 of the Act at Rs 1,85,10,239/- and added back the said amount to the income of the assessee ... after hearing the assessee modified the assessment order by directing the AO to restrict the addition to the extent of 2% of alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee during the previous year. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the said findings

Jt. CIT (OSD)-6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Cargo Gear Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2677/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2677/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jt. Cit (Osd)-6(2)(1) बिधम/ Cargo Gear Services Pvt. Room No. 563, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Plot No. 10, Opp Sant Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Janaben Muncipal Market, Road, Mumbai Pin:400 020 Godapdev Cross Rd No. 1, Off Reay Road Pin:400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc4330K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri V. Jenardhanan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27.09.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.01.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.35,08,658/- Being Peak Of Sham Purchases Made U/S 69C Of The Act, By Holding That It Is Addition Of Bogus Purchases U/S 68 Of The Act, A.Y. 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

addition of Rs.35,08,658/- being peak of sham purchases made u/s 69C of the Act, by holding that it is addition of bogus purchases u/s 68 of the Act, A.Y. 2011-12 thus, not, appreciating that provision of 69C is separate from the provisions, governing business income and being ... Rs.6,590/-. The Assessing Officer received a letter from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai in which it was stated that the assessee was engaged in the bogus purchase activity i.e. taking the accommodation entries from hawala operators. According to this information the assessee has bogus purchases bill from the 3 parties