← 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 20(1), Mumbai vs. Bhushan K Vora, Mumbai

ITA 2081/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2081/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-20(1) Shri Bhushan K. Vora 4Th Floor,R.No.406, Flat No.2, Lamba Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Vs. 215, Sir, Balchandra Road Mumbai. Matunga, Mumbai-400 019. Pan:Aaapv 8776 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप ""या"ेप ""या"ेप/Cross Objection/187/Mum/2016 Ay.2009-10 ""या"ेप Acit-20(1) Shri Bhushan K. Vora 4Th Floor,R.No.406, Flat No.2, Lamba Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Vs. 215, Sir, Balchandra Road Mumbai. Matunga, Mumbai-400 019. Pan:Aaapv 8776 E राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Rasiklal Shah-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 16.01.2015 Of The Cit(A)-32,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee,An Individual,Engaged In The Business Of Exports & Imports Of Surgical Instruments, Filed His Return Of Income On 27.09.2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,08,66,731/-.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 31.12.2013,U/S.143(3) R.W. S.147 Of The Act,Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 1.46 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Rasiklal Shah-ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)

आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “बी मुंबई बी बी” ” ” ” खंडपीठ

ACIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Bhairav Metals, Mumbai

ITA 4680/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./4680/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-14(1) M/S. Bhairav Metals 2Nd Floor,Earnest House 57, Binani Building, Gr. Floor 2Nd Bhoiwada Lane, Bhuleshwar Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaafb 4213 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri S.C. Patni-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/12/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/01/2017 आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 30.4.14,Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, The Assessing Officer(Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee-Firm,Engaged In The Business Of Importing & Supply Of Ferrous & Non Ferrous Metals,Filed Its Return Of Income On 13.10.2010,Declaring Income Of Rs.57.90 Lakhs.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 28.02.2013,U/S. 143(3) Of The Act,Determining The Income At Rs.1.90 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Patni-ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

provisions of section 69C of the Act. He made an addition 4680/M/14-Bhairav.M of Rs.1.31(Rs.1.12 crores +13.10 lakhs+6.53 lakhs) crores under the head bogus purchases for the purchases made from the above referred three parties. 3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before

DCIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai vs. Sarang Property Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3563/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.3563/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2011-12 Dcit, Cc-23, M/S. Sarang Property Developers Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. 10Th Floor, 215 Atrium, बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400059 Pan: Aadcs6382B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व ओर से / Revenue By : Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad (Dr) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 53

framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The whole addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the plea that assessee booked certain bogus purchases in its books of accounts, which were paid through cheque. The assessee passed necessary journal entries wherein, purchases were reversed and the resultant cash ... view that such back must be out of on-money, charged by the assessee and cash was generated by way of booking of bogus purchases. Totality of facts/seized papers (contained in annexure A/1), clearly indicates that cash flow depicts the receipt of cash against the payment in cheque towards purchases

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mahesh Banichand Rajput, Mumbai

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2606/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Shri Mahesh Banichand Rajput, Room No.704, C-11, 105/844, Motilal Nagar No.1, फनधभ/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Road, No.3, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Goregaon (W), Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400062. Mumbai-400051 Cross-Objection No.195/Mum/2016 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2606/Mum/2015 (यनर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ Shri Mahesh Banichand Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Rajput, Mumbai-400051 Vs. Mumbai (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aacpr2152A (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Revenue By : Shri G Nantha Kumar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Assessee By : Shri Manish Dedhia

For Appellant: Shri Manish DedhiaFor Respondent: Shri G Nantha Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee in the cross-objection are as under: “1. The learned AO has on receipt of information from DGIT(Inv), Mumbai regarding bogus purchase without doing further investigation; reopen the assessment and thus erred in reopening the assessment u/s. 147/148. 2. The learned AO has erred in adding purchase ... bogus purchase without conducting independent inquiry and merely on the basis of statement given by third parties before sales tax department and information received from the MVAT department. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that purchases were duly verified by the preceding AO and after satisfaction

Amit Devani, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 705/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad,Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am Income Tax Appeal Nos.705, 706 & 707/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2010-11) Shri Amit Davani Vs. Ito 22 (1) (1) 601, Shri Nidhi Apartments Vashi Railway Station Cama Lane, Ghatkopar (W) Navi Mumbai Mumbai – 400 086 (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) स्र्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Accpd7658R अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Kirit S Sanghavi प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kirit S SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

appeals is that Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law in confirming the addition being 20% of the purchases being alleged to be hawala or bogus purchases. 2 Shri Amit Davani ITA Nos. 705, 706 & 707/Mum/2016 3. Briefly stated the facts are the Assessee, an individual is engaged in the business ... determining on 28.03.2014. While completing the assessments, the Assessing Officer disallowed purchases made by the Assessee treating them as not genuine and they are bogus purchases in the absence of Assessee’s failure to produce the parties for verification and no supporting evidence like delivery challans, transportation bills etc. were