← 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

Kinjal Construction Co. & Chirag Construction Co. (Jv), Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is party allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4383/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Kinjal Construction Co. & Ito 18(2)(4) Chirag Construction Co. (Jv), Office Room No. 109, Piramal No. 101, 1St Floor, Prathamesh Chamber, 1St Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Apartments, Old College Road, Mumbai-400012. Dadar, Mumbai-400028 Pan: Aaaam8709M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ito 21(2)(2) M/S. Kinjal Construction Co. & Room No. 110, 1St Floor, Chirag Construction Co. (Jv), Office No. 101, 1St Floor, Prathamesh Piramal Chamber, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Apartments, Old College Road, Dadar, Mumbai-400028 Pan: Aaaam8709M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. B. Sanghvi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist (DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

argued that in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11the coordinate bench of Tribunal sustained the similar disallowance @12.5% of the similar bogus purchases. The copy of the Tribunal’s order in ITA No.4384&4527/M/2015 was filed on record. The Ld. AR of the assessee fairly admitted ... record that no purchase were made at all, counsel for the revenue would be justified in arguing that the entire amount of such bogus purchases should be added back to the income of the assessee. Such were the facts in case of ACIT (OSC) Ward 5(3) Nadiad Vs. Pawanraj

ITO WD 3(2), Thane vs. Rajendra B. Jain, Thane

In the result the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2932/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri. D.T. Garasia & Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year 2009 – 10 Income Tax Officer V. Rajendra B Jain Ward 3(2), Thane Prop. Rainbow Wroght Iron Room No.04J, 6Th Floor, Furniture, 16, Lily Apartment Ashar It Park Aghayari Lane, Tembhi Naka Midc, Wagle Indl. Estate Thane (W) -400 601 Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan No.Aappj3404J (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen Respondent By Shri N.A. Kulkarni C.O No.186/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2932/Mum/2016) Rajendra B Jain V. Income Tax Officer Prop. Rainbow Wroght Iron Ward 3(2), Thane Room No.04J, 6Th Floor, Furniture, 16, Lily Apartment Aghayari Lane, Tembhi Naka Ashar It Park Thane (W) -400 601 Midc, Wagle Indl. Estate Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan No.Aappj3404J (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri N.A. Kulkarni Respondent By Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in giving relief to the assessee out of total bogus purchases even thought:- a. The assessee could not produce primary evidences like Octroi Receipts, Delivery Challan etc., evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases before ... order of ITAT, Pune in ITA.No.1411-1415 dated 20.02.2015 in the case of M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., Wherein 100% addition of bogus purchases was confirmed. 3. The assessee has filed the return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring the income of Rs.1,46,880/-. The A.O has received