← 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

ACIT 27(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Mumbai

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

ITA 3617/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3617/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The A.C.I.T.-27(3), Vs. Shri Vikrant Vikas Raikar, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Prop. M/S Elegant Construction, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Plot No. 8, Hotel Pearl, Vashi, D.K. Sandu Marg, Chembur, Navi Mumbai - 400071 Mumbai - 400071 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpr2711C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia (DR)
Section 143

before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee restricted the addition to the extent of 10% of the total bogus purchases made by the assessee during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The revenue is in appeal against the impugned order ... genuineness of purchases in question, the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly restricted the addition made by AO to 10% of the total amount of bogus purchases made during the relevant year. The Ld. DR relying on the various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and Tribunals including

ACIT - 19(1), Mumbai vs. Ganesh J. Modi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining an addition to the extent of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases without reducing the GP already shown by the appellant on these alleged bogus purchases. 3. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue ... order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that (i) the issue of bogus purchases was not there in the original assessment and purchases were not verified by the AO, (ii) on the date of recording reasons, new material

Ganesh J Modi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1967/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining an addition to the extent of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases without reducing the GP already shown by the appellant on these alleged bogus purchases. 3. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue ... order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that (i) the issue of bogus purchases was not there in the original assessment and purchases were not verified by the AO, (ii) on the date of recording reasons, new material

Kapoor Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 542/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 542/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Kapoor Industries Ito-26(2)(1), बनाम/ Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 161-A, Sai Kutir, Lbs Marg, Kurla West, Mumbai-400 070 C-12, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafk 4742 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dinesh Rasiklal Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Jenardhanan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.07.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Learned Cit(A)-38, Mumbai Dated 30.11.2016 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Issue Raised Is That Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Disallowance Of 25% Of Bogus Purchase Amounting To Rs.8,55,497/-.

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Rasiklal ShahFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan
Section 148

dated 30.11.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10. 2. The issue raised is that CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance of 25% of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.8,55,497/-. 3. The grounds of appeal read as under: 2 Kapoor Industries ... well as in law in making addition of Rs.8,55,497/- (25 percentage of purchase of Rs, 34,21,988/-) on account of bogus purchases and assessing income at Rs. 14,55,850/- & raising disputed tax demand of Rs.4,64,820/- and Learned CIT (A) - 38 confirming the same

Mansukhlal H. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11

ITA 5645/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5645/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5646/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Mansukhlal H Mehta, Vs. The Income Tax Officer 32(2)(3), (Prop. Of M/S United Engineering), Pratayksh Kar Bhavan, Bkc, B-702, Marble Arch, Mumbai 51St Tps Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400092 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalps3521B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeevraj P. Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

accordingly asked by the AO to show cause as to why the purchases made from the said concerns should not be treated as bogus purchase and why the amount should not be treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and why the amount should not be added ... Learned C.I.T (A) 44 erred in ignoring Appellants submissions that opportunity of cross examination of parties of whom purchases are treated as bogus purchases was not allowed and confirming extra G.P of 13.85% on such purchases is against Principal of Natural Justice. Appellant prays for deletion of Addition