← 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

Deepak C. Bajaj, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1) Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-

ITA 2938/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2938/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sh. Deepak C. Bajaj, 2Nd Floor, Ward 2(1) Kalyan, Flat No. 1105-1106, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Pleasant Park, Yogi Hills, Khadakpada, Mulund – (West), Kalyan – (West)- 421301 Mumbai - 400080 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawpb4802D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Neha Paranjpe (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr)

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjpe (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)
Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69

record. We find that the SMC Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal has restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, in assessee’s own appeals, ITA No. 287/Mum/2017, (A.Y. 2009-10 ) and ITA No. 284/Mum/ 2017 (A.Y. 2011-12). The operative part of the order ... both the years and direct the AO to sustain the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. I order accordingly.” 4 Assessment Year: 2010-11 7. The facts of the present case and the issue involved in the present case are identical to the facts

DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai vs. Sunraj Industries, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2589/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2589/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Dcit Cir 29(3), Vs. M/S Sunraj Industries, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, 218, Veena Indl Estate, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, L.B.S. Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bhandup (E), Mumbai- 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs8367E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1871/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Sunraj Industries, Vs. The Acit Cir 23 (1), 218, Veena Indl Estate, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vikhroli (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs8367E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Lala (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against Order Dated 16/02/2015 Passed By The Ld. Cit (A)-40, Mumbai Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-11, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Lala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145Section 40

determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,46,48,520/-, after making addition of Rs. 2,37,162/- on account of bogus purchases made from three parties during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and making addition of Rs. 90,04,340/- on account ... assessment order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee deleted the addition made on account of the alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee, however, directed the AO to disallow the depreciation claimed in return of income to the tune

Sunraj Industries, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1871/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2589/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Dcit Cir 29(3), Vs. M/S Sunraj Industries, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, 218, Veena Indl Estate, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, L.B.S. Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bhandup (E), Mumbai- 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs8367E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1871/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Sunraj Industries, Vs. The Acit Cir 23 (1), 218, Veena Indl Estate, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vikhroli (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs8367E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Lala (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against Order Dated 16/02/2015 Passed By The Ld. Cit (A)-40, Mumbai Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-11, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Lala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145Section 40

determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,46,48,520/-, after making addition of Rs. 2,37,162/- on account of bogus purchases made from three parties during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and making addition of Rs. 90,04,340/- on account ... assessment order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee deleted the addition made on account of the alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee, however, directed the AO to disallow the depreciation claimed in return of income to the tune