← 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 25(1), Mumbai vs. City Life Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6208/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. City Life Developers, Acit-25(1), 5Th C-11, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Agarwal Golden Chamber, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Plot No.13/A, Fun Republic Bkc, Bandra – East, Vs. Road, Mumbai - 51 Off New Link Road, Andheri-West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aadfc1252B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 O/O. Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. City Life Developers, 5Th Floor, Agarwal Golden Income Tax 25(1), Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Chamber, Room No.202, 2Nd Floor, Plot No.13/A, Fun Republic Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Bandra (East) Off New Link Road, Mumbai – 400 051 Andheri-West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aadfc1252B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Aditya Ajgaonkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, D.R
Section 263

assessee, bringing our attention to ground No.(vii) to (xi) as reproduced above, has stated that the same relate to the disallowance of bogus purchases of Rs.95,203/-. He has further stated that during the year the AO had made the addition of the aforesaid amount of Rs.95 ... position, we do not find infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases under section 69C of the Act. 16. Ground Nos.(xii) & (xiii) are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. In view

City Life Developers, Mumbai vs. CIT 25, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6116/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. City Life Developers, Acit-25(1), 5Th C-11, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Agarwal Golden Chamber, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Plot No.13/A, Fun Republic Bkc, Bandra – East, Vs. Road, Mumbai - 51 Off New Link Road, Andheri-West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aadfc1252B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 O/O. Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. City Life Developers, 5Th Floor, Agarwal Golden Income Tax 25(1), Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Chamber, Room No.202, 2Nd Floor, Plot No.13/A, Fun Republic Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Bandra (East) Off New Link Road, Mumbai – 400 051 Andheri-West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aadfc1252B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Aditya Ajgaonkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, D.R
Section 263

assessee, bringing our attention to ground No.(vii) to (xi) as reproduced above, has stated that the same relate to the disallowance of bogus purchases of Rs.95,203/-. He has further stated that during the year the AO had made the addition of the aforesaid amount of Rs.95 ... position, we do not find infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases under section 69C of the Act. 16. Ground Nos.(xii) & (xiii) are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. In view

Econ Pipe and Fitting P.Ltd, Bhiwandi vs. ITO WD 1(1), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5690/MUM/2016[22010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoi.T.A. No.5690/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) फनाभ/ Elcon Pipe & Fittings Private The Income Tax Officer- Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. B-8, Godown No.7, Prithvi Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Complex-Ii, Pipe Line Kalher, Khadakpada, Kalyan (W), Bhiwandi-421302. Thane – 421301. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabce9399J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Mrs. Beena Santosh, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Mrs. Beena Santosh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

well as the assessee, Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition of the entire purchases amounting to Rs. 19,61,897/- on account of „bogus purchases‟. Aggrieved, assessee carried the mater appal before the first appellate authority. 4. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, after considering the submissions ... assessee filed copies of the affidavits from the said persons and relied on various decisions against the said additions on account of bogus purchases. On hearing the same and after obtaining the remand report of the AO on the said affidavits, CIT (A) decided the appeal partly allowing the appeal

ITO 5(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kamdhenu Valves P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3774/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoफनाभ/ Ito-5(2)(2), M/S. Kamdhenu Valves Pvt 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Shop No.9, Jain Bhavan, Dr. Bhajekar Street, Mumbai-400004. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaack3257G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Ms. Beena Santosh, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Hemlata Bhungare सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue On 1.6.2016 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-10, Mumbai Dated 22.2.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. In This Appeal, Revenue Raised Two Main Grounds & They Revolve Around The Core Issue Relating To The Addition On Account Of „Bogus Purchases‟ From The Suppliers Whose Names Are Appearing In The Official Website Of The Sales Tax Department. This Is The Case Where The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Such Entire Bogus Purchases. Aggrieved With The Said Decision Of The Ao Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The First Appellate Authority. 3. During The Proceedings Before The First Appellate Authority, Cit (A) Relied On The Judgment Of The Hon‟Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit Vide Writ Petition No. 2860 Of 2012, Dated 18Th June, 2014 & Disproved The Addition Made By The Ao U/S 69C Of The Act. Further, Relying On The Ratio Laid Down By The Hon‟Ble Gujarat High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Simit P. Sheth [2013] 356 Itr 451, Cit (A) Restricted The Addition To 12.50% Of Such Alleged Bogus Purchases. Aggrieved With The Relief Granted By The Cit (A), Revenue Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal By Raising The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Ms. Beena Santosh, DRFor Respondent: Ms. Hemlata Bhungare
Section 69C

this appeal, Revenue raised two main grounds and they revolve around the core issue relating to the addition on account of „bogus purchases‟ from the suppliers whose names are appearing in the official website of the Sales Tax Department. This is the case where the Assessing Officer made addition ... such entire bogus purchases. Aggrieved with the said decision of the AO assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 3. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, CIT (A) relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nickunj

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Srs Pharmaceuticals P Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 825/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./825/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7728/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./826/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 वष" Dy.Cit-2(3)(2) M/S. Srs Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. Room No.556, 5Th Floor, 601-605, 6Th Floor, Marathon Max Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Building No.2,Lbs Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Mulund (W),Mumbai-400080 Pan:Aafcs 4633 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri A.K. Nayak- Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rahul Hakani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:29.03.2017 लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 7/10/2014 & 16/9/2014,Of The Cit (A)-6,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer(Ao)Has Filed The Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Ay.S. As The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical,So,We Are Disposing Them The Same By A Single Common Order.Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Supply Of Avant Grade Pharmaceuticals.The Details Of Dates Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessment Etc. Can Be Summarised As Under: Ay Roi Filed On Returned Income Assessment Date Assessed Income 2009-10 26/09/2009 Rs.4.11 Crores 27/03/2014 Rs.5.18 Crores 2010-11 26/09/2010 Rs.6.04 Crores 23/03/2013 Rs.7.63 Crores 2011-12 26/09/2011 Rs.6.55 Crores 27/03/2014 Rs.8.00 Crores

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Nayak- DR
Section 143Section 148

Rs.7.63 crores 2011-12 26/09/2011 Rs.6.55 crores 27/03/2014 Rs.8.00 crores ITA/825/Mum/2015-AY.2009-10.Brief facts: 2.Effective ground of appeal is about deleting the disallowance under the head bogus purchases,amounting to Rs. 1.07 crores.Initially,the return was processed u/s.143 (1) of the Act.Subsequently,the AO received information from the Investigation Wing that ... case.After considering the assessment order and the explanation of the assessee,he upheld the reopening. With regard to addition on account of bogus purchases,he held that the assessee was 100% export oriented pharmaceutical company,that it exported all the products manufactured by it and was not involved in local