← 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 32(1), Mumbai vs. Hiralal K. Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4726/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Shri Hiralal K Patel, Tax-32(1), Room No.202, 2Nd Fl. 1St Floor, Heera House, फनधभ/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Daulat Nagar, Borivali East, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051 Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aacpp222K (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri M C Omi Ningshan प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue By : Shri Devang Kishor Shah

For Appellant: Shri M C Omi NingshanFor Respondent: Shri Devang Kishor Shah
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

erred in restricting addition of unexplained expenditure to Rs.5,96, 120/ - @ 8% of Rs.74,51,506/-) u/s.69C of the LT. Act on account of bogus purchases as against the addition of Rs.74,51,506/- made by the AO without appreciating that the 2 assessee has not produced any cogent evidence ... assessing the total income at Rs.1,02,65,880/- after making addition of Rs.74,51,506/- u/s 69C of the towards bogus purchases. During the appellate proceedings the ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition towards GP at the rate

ITO 32(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Shaitansingh M. Rathod, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 28/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.28/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Income Tax Officer 32(3)(4) Shaitansingh M. Rathod Room No. 103, 1St Floor, E/81 बनाम/ Building No. C-11, Shree Mahavir Apartment, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Bkc Ratnan Nagar Vs. Bandra (E) Dahisar(E) Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai 400 068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Agjpr-3582-K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. A.K. Nayak, Ld. Dr ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : B.G. Sakaria, Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Dr. A.K. Nayak, Ld. DRFor Respondent: B.G. Sakaria, Ld. AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

Accountant Member) 1. By way of captioned appeal for Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11, the revenue has contested the relief provided to assessee qua bogus purchases by Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-35 [CIT(A)], Mumbai vide order dated 14/10/2014. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee being resident individual ... been assessed u/s 143(3) for impugned AY at Rs.66,01,390/- after disallowance of certain bogus purchases u/s 69C for Rs.58,53,495/- as against returned income of Rs.7,47,900/- filed by the assessee on 27/09/2010. The assessee was engaged as civil contractor under the proprietorship concern namely

ITO 32(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Hiren C Parekh, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is partly allowed and that of revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Officer-32(1)(5), Shri Hiren C Parekh, Room No.203, C-11, 2Nd Floor,, Prop M/S Asiatic Metals & Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Alloys, फनधभ/ Bandra-Kurla Complex, 402, Narmada Apartments, Vs. Bandra (E), Simpoli Road, Haridas Nagar, Mumbai-400051 Borivali (W), Mumbia-400092 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Cross-Objection No.17/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No.01/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Hiren C Parekh, Income Tax Officer-32(1)(5), Room No.203, C-11, 2Nd Floor,, Prop M/S Asiatic Metals & Alloys, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, फनधभ/ 402, Narmada Apartments, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Simpoli Road, Haridas Nagar, Bandra (E), Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbia-400092 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms.Snehal R ShahFor Respondent: Shri M C Omi Ningshan
Section 133(6)Section 69C

ld.CIT(A) as made by the AO under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained expenditure in respect of bogus purchases by ignoring the facts that the notices under section 133(6) were returned unserved and investigation carried out by the Sales Tax Department ... also filed cross-objection challenging the order of ld. CIT(A) in sustenance of addition to the tune of 12% of the total bogus purchases which worked out to Rs.8,57,760/- and prayed that in view of the decision in the case of CIT V/s Simit P Seth