← 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

Maya Entertainment Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 7098/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd Income-Tax-11(1), 23 Shah Indl Estate, फनधभ/ Room No.467, 4Th Floor, Off Veera Desai Rd, Vs. Andheri (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M K Marg, Mumbai-400053 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Income-Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S C TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 133(6)

invoices, PAN was furnished before the AO. The AO ,after considering the reply of the assessee, came to the conclusion that the assessee made bogus purchases from these parties for the reasons that the notices issued u/s ITA No.7098/Mu/2013 & 813/Mum/2014 133(6) were returned unserved and income tax inspector after

Maya Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 507/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd Income-Tax-11(1), 23 Shah Indl Estate, फनधभ/ Room No.467, 4Th Floor, Off Veera Desai Rd, Vs. Andheri (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M K Marg, Mumbai-400053 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Income-Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S C TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 133(6)

invoices, PAN was furnished before the AO. The AO ,after considering the reply of the assessee, came to the conclusion that the assessee made bogus purchases from these parties for the reasons that the notices issued u/s ITA No.7098/Mu/2013 & 813/Mum/2014 133(6) were returned unserved and income tax inspector after

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Maya Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1157/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd Income-Tax-11(1), 23 Shah Indl Estate, फनधभ/ Room No.467, 4Th Floor, Off Veera Desai Rd, Vs. Andheri (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M K Marg, Mumbai-400053 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Income-Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S C TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 133(6)

invoices, PAN was furnished before the AO. The AO ,after considering the reply of the assessee, came to the conclusion that the assessee made bogus purchases from these parties for the reasons that the notices issued u/s ITA No.7098/Mu/2013 & 813/Mum/2014 133(6) were returned unserved and income tax inspector after

M/S. Bio- Vet Industries, Mumbai vs. The ACIT 25(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5327/MUM/2007[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2017AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5327/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3084/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) M/S Bio-Vet Industries, Dcit – 25(1), बनाम/ Shantivilla, C-11, Pratyasha Kar V. Nr. St. Lawrence School, Bhavan, Devidas Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 103. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadfb 3600 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Asyharzain V.P. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 80l

passed by the A.O. on 28th February, 2006 wherein additions to the income were made on account of bogus purchases and hawala commissions, based upon the information received from the I.T.O., Ward 9(3)(2) who completed assessment in the case of M/s Subheksha Exports Ltd. for assessment year ... also made additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 2,06,100/- towards bogus purchases which were added to income under the head ‘income from business’ and commission payment to Subshaksha Exports Limited for services rendered to the assessee paid outside the books were estimated