← 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

Ashok Kumar Rungta, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 3008/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3008/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3009/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3012/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs. The Ito- 24(1)(1), Sh. Ashok Kumar Rungta, Bandra Kurla Complex, Red Wood ‘A’, Flat No. 404, Mumbai Evershine Greens, Andheri Link Road, Adarsh Nagar, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai - 400102 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aedpr4023H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4205/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4206/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4207/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer- Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Rungta, 31(1)(2), A/404, Redwood, Room No. 703, C-11, Evershine Greens, Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Oshiwara Off New Link Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Jogeshwatir (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aedpr4023H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & Ita No. 4205, 4206 & 4207/Mum/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Modi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

reopened u/s 147 of the Act. The reasons recorded for reopening the case reads as under:- “This office has received information regarding bogus purchases involving Rs. 1 crore above from DG (Inv), Mumbai. In the list of assessee provided by the DG (Inv) the name of (S A S Marketing ... concern of Shri Ashok Kumar Rungta) is appearing who is assessed in this charge and as per the information the above assessee has made bogus purchases during the previous year 2008-09 relevant to AY 2009-10 of Rs. 2,10.45,351/-. I, have therefore reason to believe that income

ITO 27(2)(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Manoj S. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result Revenues appeal stands allowed and the assessee's cross objection is stands dismissed

ITA 7524/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya: Asst.Year 2008-2009 The Income Tax Officer Shri Manoj S.Mehta बनाम/ Ward 27(2)(2) M/S.Devankur Steel Mumbai. 31, Ahmedabad Street Vs. Carnac Bunder Mumbai . Pan : Acjpm8523H. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co No.95/Mum/2017 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 Shri Manoj S.Mehta The Income Tax Officer M/S.Devankur Steel बनाम/ Ward 27(2)(2) 31, Ahmedabad Street Mumbai. Vs. Carnac Bunder Mumbai . (Cross Objector) (""यथ"/Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Satyanarayana Raju (Sr.Dr) Assessee By : Shri Ketan N.Goda सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2017 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Wherein 2.3% Disallowance On Account Of Bogus Purchase Was Sustained By The Learned Cit(A) As Against 12.5% Sustained By The Assessing Officer, Thus Granting Relief Of Rs.37,91,959 To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan N.GodaFor Respondent: Shri Satyanarayana Raju (Sr.DR)
Section 133(6)

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) wherein 2.3% disallowance on account of bogus purchase was sustained by the learned CIT(A) as against 12.5% sustained by the Assessing Officer, thus granting relief of Rs.37,91,959 to the assessee. 2. Brief ... name appears as one of the beneficiaries of accommodation bills. As per the information received, the AO observed that the assessee has made bogus purchases from the following four parties, as under: - Sr. No. Party who have issued bogus bills to the Amount (Rs.) assessee 1 Trishul Traders