← 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

M/S Micron Platers vs. Income Tax Officer20 (2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3090/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoफनाभ/ M/S. Micron Platers, Ito-20(2)(2), 1/11, Building No.2, 1 St Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Marol Udyog Premises Coop. Soc., Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaqfm3374F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri A.K. Sinha प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Beena Santosh, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 2.5.2016 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-36, Mumbai Dated 28.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Relates To The Cit (A)’S Decision In Restricting The Addition To 12.5% Of The Bogus Purchases Amounting To Rs. 18,31,500/-. Briefly Stated Relevant Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Claimed The Said Purchases From M/S. Dev Enterprises, Whose Name Has Appeared In The Blocklist Of The Official Website Maintained By The Sales Tax Department. In The Assessment, Ao Disallowed The Said Amount U/S 69C Of The Act Treating The Same As Bogus Purchases. Matter Travelled To The First Appellate Authority. 3. During The Proceedings Before The First Appellate Authority, Cit (A) Restricted The Said Addition To 12.5% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases Amounting To Rs. 18,31,500/-. While Coming To The Said Decision, Cit (A) Relied On The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Gujarat High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Simit P. Sheth (355 Itr 290)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. SinhaFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh, DR
Section 69C

only issue raised in this appeal relates to the CIT (A)’s decision in restricting the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 18,31,500/-. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee claimed the said purchases from M/s. Dev Enterprises, whose name ... website maintained by the Sales Tax Department. In the assessment, AO disallowed the said amount u/s 69C of the Act treating the same as bogus purchases. Matter travelled to the first appellate authority. 3. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, CIT (A) restricted the said addition

Satyabhama V. Rajgarhia, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 22(2), Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4048/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Satyabhama Vinod फनाभ/ Dcit, Circle-22(2), Tower No.6, 4 Th Floor, Vashi Rajgarhia, Vs. C/O. R.C. Rashamwala & Co., Rly. Station Bldg., Chartered Accountants, 323, Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Varma Chmbers, 11, Homji Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Acqpr8876D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Kirit Sanghvi प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Mrs. Arju Garodia, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 20.5.2013 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-33, Mumbai Dated 18.3.2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Relates To The Addition Of 26,98,502/- On Account Of Bogus Purchases. Before Us, Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That An Identical Issue Came Up For Adjudication In The Case Of Shri Rakesh Kumar M. Gupta & His Family Members. In This Regard, At The Outset, Ld Counsel For The Assessee Filed Copies Of The Order Of The Order Of The Tribunal In The Assessee’S Own Case For The Ay 2006-07 To 2008-2009 Vide Ita Nos.473 To 475/Mum/2015 (Ays 2006-07 To 2008-09), Dated 1.7.2016 & Mentioned That The Facts Are Identical & Therefore, According To Him, The Matter Stands Covered In Favour Of The Assessee. Bringing Our Attention To Para 5.1 Of The Said Tribunal’S Order (Supra), Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Addition On Account Of Bogus Purchases Stands Deleted & Read Out The Following:-

For Appellant: Shri Kirit SanghviFor Respondent: Mrs. Arju Garodia, DR

assessment year 2009-2010. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal relates to the addition of 26,98,502/- on account of bogus purchases. Before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that an identical issue came up for adjudication in the case of Shri Rakesh Kumar M. Gupta ... attention to para 5.1 of the said Tribunal’s order (supra), Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition on account of bogus purchases stands deleted and read out the following:- “5.1. Respectfully following the said decision, delete the addition in respect of unexplained / unproved purchases in each