← 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

Rupesh Chimanlal Savla, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(3), Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6179/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad,Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Income Tax Appeal No.6179-6182/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Shri Rupesh Chimanlal Savla Vs. Ito 3(3) Prop. Of Savla International 2Nd Floor, 16, Royal Tusk, B.S. Road Rani Mansion Dadar (W) Murbad `Road, Kalyan Mumbai – 400 028 (West), Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amrps4468B अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellants By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Shri Nagin Parikh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Rm Madhavi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : All These Four Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-I, Thane Dated 25.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2012-13 Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With 147 Of The Act. As The Facts & Issues Are Identical All The Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2.1 Assessee Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) In Sustaining The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Act In All These Appeals. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submits, The Reopening Of 2 Rupesh Chimanlal Savla

For Respondent: Smt. RM Madhavi
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 4

based on the information received by the Assessing Officer from the Sales Tax department, Maharashtra, stating that some dealers have provided accommodation entries for bogus purchase bills to large number of taxpayers. On the basis of this information, the assessments were reopened in Assessee’s case for the assessment years ... From the information obtained by the Assessing Officer from Sales Tax department, he was of the opinion that Assessee has also obtained bogus purchase bills from various parties listed in the Sales Tax department website. In the course of Assessment proceedings, from the details filed by 3 Rupesh Chimanlal Savla