← 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 12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Mangalam Infra Development Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12

ITA 6106/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6106/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Ito-12(3)(3), Vs. M/S Mangalam Infra Room No. 224, Development Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 16, Ground Floor, M.K. Road, Shreeji Shopping Centre, Mumbai - 400020 M.G. Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai - 400066 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm3854Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & प्रत्याक्षेप सं /Co No. 206/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Mangalam Infra Vs. The Ito-12(3)(3), Development Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 224, 16, Ground Floor, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Shreeji Shopping Centre, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 M.G. Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai - 400066 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm3854Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish J. Sheth (AR)For Respondent: Sh. T.A. Khan (DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 69C

concerned, however, the notices were received back un-served. The AO after hearing the contention of the assessee added back the entire amount of bogus purchases, i.e. Rs. 1,69,33,974/- to the income of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act. In appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) restricted ... hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have sustained the addition to 11% of the alleged bogus purchases instead of 11% of the total turnover amounting to Rs. 11,66,15,016/-. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the assessee has filed

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Mumbai

ITA 2608/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.07/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2608/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Proprietor Of N.R. Computech, (Erstwhile Income Tax बनाम/ 23/11, Jawahar Nagar, Officer-24(3)(4), Vs. Goregaon (East), R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Mumbai-400063 Pratyakshkar Bhavan, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.06 To 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj Jain Assessment Years: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C

First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, whereas, the assessee preferred cross objections. In the appeal of the Revenue, restricting the addition to 03.18% on account of bogus purchases by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has been challenged, whereas, in the C.O. No.06 to 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj Jain cross objections ... dated 22/02/2011, observed/held as under:- “The question raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on account of bogus purchases allegedly made by the assessee from M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd. According to the revenue, the Director of M/s. Thakkar Agro