← 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

DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Diagold Designs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-13

ITA 5621/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5621/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dy. Cit 12(2)(1), Vs. M/S Diagold Designs Ltd., Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor, R-1, Cama Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Walbhat Road, Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400063 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd3716A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Co No. 148/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Diagold Designs Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Cit 12(2)(1), R-1, Cama Industrial Estate, Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor, Walbhat Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400063 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd3716A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla and Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147

parties concern. However, the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee made addition of Rs. 1,35,15,546/- treating the same as bogus purchases. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee challenged the same before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) relying on the law laid ... case, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,35,15,546/- made on account of non-genuine bogus purchases.” 2. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing relief

Fancy Wear, Kharghar vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1596/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No.1596/Mum/2016,िन आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िन िनधा"रण वष" िन धा"रण वष" धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 धा"रण वष" आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No.1597/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण वष" आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Fancy Wear Income Tax Officer 122, Megh Tower, 12Th Floor, Ward-24(3)(1), Now-31(1)(4) Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Film City Road Vs. Mumbai. Goregaon-E,Mumbai-400 063. Pan: Aacff 0727 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.09.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य,राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार / Per Rajendra,Am: लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 21/01/2016 Of Cit(A)-42, Mumbai The Assessee Is In Appeal For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years (Ay.S). The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Readymade-Garments.As The Issues Involved In Both The Years Are,So,We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals Together.The Details Of Date Of Filing Of Return, Income Declared, Assessed Income, Dates Of Assessment Orders Etc. Can Tabulated As Under :- A.Y. Roi Filed On Income Declared Assessment Dt. Assessed Income 2010-11 14.10.2011 Rs.2,15,171/- 26/03/2014 Rs.5.51Croress 2011-12 29.09.2011 Rs.1,05,187/- 26/03/2014 Rs.4.81 Croress

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-CIT-DR
Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69C

basis of the facts of the case under consideration.We are aware that different benches of the Tribunal have dealt the issue of bogus purchases in different manners depending upon certain facts. But,all the matters are fact based and orders are limited to those facts only,as stated ... FAA.In one of the cases,where one of us was party to the addition made by the AO for alleged bogus purchases,it was held that considering the facts of that case the assessee had not proved the genuineness of the transaction and that the order