← 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

Pinaki Dineshkumar Panani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(3), Mumbai

ITA 1167/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Soodआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1167/Mum/2017, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, -25(3) Smt. Pinaki Dineshkumar Panani Mumbai. 401, Mangal Villa, Tejpal Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 057. Pan:Aijpp 0802 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar-Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार /Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 23/12/2016,Of Cit(A)-37,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee,An Individual,Filed Her Return Of Income On 19/09/2008,Declaring Income Of Rs.37.27 Lakhs.Initially The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act.Subsequently,The Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act,On 16/11/2010,Determining Her Income At Rs.31.80 Lakhs. On Receipt Of Information From Sales Department The Ao Re-Opened The Assessment,Invoking The Provisions Of Section 148 Of The Act. He Finalised The Assessment U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 4/3/16 Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.70.16 Lakhs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated 30.04.2010, we, find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement i.e. reconciliation statement, but also in view of the other facts. The Tribunal records that the Books

Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT 12(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2928/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2928/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Poonam Skyline Construction Jt. Cit, Range 12(1), 66/B, 3Rd Floor, Podar Chambers, Mumbai बिाम/ Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfp 4019 R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rahul Sarda प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Saurabhkumar Rai सुनवाई की तारीख / : 01.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.2.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-28, Mumbai Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Appellant-Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Property Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.5,01,42,080/-. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai
Section 143(3)

selected for scrutiny. 3. On the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills 2 Poonam Skyline Construction vs. Jt. CIT from the eight parties mentioned in the assessment order, amounting to Rs. 8766486/-. Accordingly ... movement of goods. The assessee also failed to produce the parties from whom the alleged purchases were made. Accordingly, the A.O. added the total bogus purchases amounting to Rs.87,66,486/- to the income of the assessee. 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made