← 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

DCIT Cir 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Manohar Manek Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5586/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5586/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Manohar Manak, Alloys P L Tax Cir 4(2)(2), 44, C P Tank Road, C P Tank, Vs. R. No.642, 6Th Floor, Mumbsi-400002 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaacm2688K अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Shivaji Gode प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Assessee By Ms.Nimisha Bothara सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 7.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :16.1.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7.9.2015, Passed By The Cit(A)-9, Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Revenue Are As Under :

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

amounting to Rs.15,10,274 without appreciating the fact that 2 the addition in respect of bogus purchases was only after survey & scrutiny proceedings wherein in response to relevant queries assessee failed to explain and substantiate the genuineness of the transaction and thereby triggering default in terms of Explanation ... thereafter called for the explanation from the assessee as to why the books of account should not be rejected and proportionate disallowance on bogus purchases should not be made. 4. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee vide letter dated 6.3.2013 submitted before the AO that the material

Mohan P. Gokulkar, Bhiwandi vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed by sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs

ITA 380/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.380/Mum/2016 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनधम/ Shri Mohan P Gokulkar, Income Tax Officer-Ward 1(2), Shreeji Apartment Block No.3, Kalyan, Vs. Shree Complex, 1St Floor, Ajit Petrol Pump, Kon Village, Bhivandi-421311 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aazpg8856B अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Appellant By Ms.Vrinda Agrawal & Shri Bhupendra Agrawal प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Shri B.S Bist सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 9.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :11.1.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.12.2015, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-2, Thane, Mumbai U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Confirming The Addition Of Rs.26,34,520/- As Made By The Ao On Account Of Unproved Purchases & Not Genuineness Purchases On The 2 Basis Of Information Received From The Sales Tax Department, Government Of Maharashtra.

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

submission dated 10.12.2015, requested to adopt the GP of A Yr 5 2011-12, to determine the correct profit, instead of disallowing the 100% bogus purchases, as the AO has accepted the sales. The contention of the Ld AR appears to be reasonable, therefore, liable to be accepted ... adopted for determining the correct profit. Since the suppressed GP i.e. Rs.26,34,520/- is more than 25% of bogus purchases, i.e. Rs 9,94,8201-, therefore, the same is taken up for disallowance. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.26,34,520/-, out of hawala purchases