← 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 RG 5(1), Mumbai vs. Arviket Shares and Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4958/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 4956/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year:2009-2010) Anjani Steel Income Tax Officer Ward -01, 3Rd Floor Plot No. 463, Road No. 4, बिाम/ Steel Market, Kalamboli, Trifed Tower Vs. Panvel, Distt. Raigad Opp. Khada Colony Mumbai New Panvel 410206 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aapfa7295Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri V.D.Parmar, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri J.P.Jangid, Dr

For Appellant: Shri V.D.Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.P.Jangid, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee was sought to be reopened upon receipt of information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra regarding certain dealers indulging in issuance of bogus purchase bills and assessee being listed as one of the beneficiaries of bogus purchase bills in respect of following dealers:- Sr. Name of the Party Maharashtra ... other hand, has contended that the purchases are made from non-existent parties and hence, rightly been treated the same as bogus purchases and added to the income of the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on record. The only dispute is with regard

Anjani Steel, Raigad vs. ITO WD 1, New Panvel

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4956/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 4956/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year:2009-2010) Anjani Steel Income Tax Officer Ward -01, 3Rd Floor Plot No. 463, Road No. 4, बिाम/ Steel Market, Kalamboli, Trifed Tower Vs. Panvel, Distt. Raigad Opp. Khada Colony Mumbai New Panvel 410206 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aapfa7295Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri V.D.Parmar, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri J.P.Jangid, Dr

For Appellant: Shri V.D.Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.P.Jangid, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee was sought to be reopened upon receipt of information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra regarding certain dealers indulging in issuance of bogus purchase bills and assessee being listed as one of the beneficiaries of bogus purchase bills in respect of following dealers:- Sr. Name of the Party Maharashtra ... other hand, has contended that the purchases are made from non-existent parties and hence, rightly been treated the same as bogus purchases and added to the income of the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on record. The only dispute is with regard

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Jk Surface Coating P.Tld, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6848/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6769/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Jk Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Neel Siddhi Enclave-Commercial Of Income Tax (Dcit) बिाम/ Complex, Plot-48/9, Sector-14, Vashi, 10(3) Vs. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Mumbai स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8308H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6848/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) The Dy. Commissioner Of Jk Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax (Dcit) बिाम/ Neel Siddhi Enclave-Commercial 10(3) Complex, Plot-48/9, Sector-14, Vashi, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8308H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Ms. Jigna Parekh, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue By : Shri C. S. Sharma, Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Jigna Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. S. Sharma, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

take up the assessee‟s appeal in ITA NO.6769/Mum/2014 wherein the assessee is primarily aggrieved by confirmation of addition with respect to bogus purchases. 2. Facts qua the dispute are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of industrial anti/corrosive/protective coating applicators, who filed ... basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from 14 parties totaling Rs.2,47,15,690/- which were stated to be hawala operators. The assessee contended that he was engaged in extensive projects and in need

Jk Surface Coatings P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6769/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6769/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Jk Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Neel Siddhi Enclave-Commercial Of Income Tax (Dcit) बिाम/ Complex, Plot-48/9, Sector-14, Vashi, 10(3) Vs. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Mumbai स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8308H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6848/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) The Dy. Commissioner Of Jk Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax (Dcit) बिाम/ Neel Siddhi Enclave-Commercial 10(3) Complex, Plot-48/9, Sector-14, Vashi, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8308H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Ms. Jigna Parekh, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue By : Shri C. S. Sharma, Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Jigna Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. S. Sharma, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

take up the assessee‟s appeal in ITA NO.6769/Mum/2014 wherein the assessee is primarily aggrieved by confirmation of addition with respect to bogus purchases. 2. Facts qua the dispute are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of industrial anti/corrosive/protective coating applicators, who filed ... basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from 14 parties totaling Rs.2,47,15,690/- which were stated to be hawala operators. The assessee contended that he was engaged in extensive projects and in need

ACIT 33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Badriprasad B Mistry, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 218/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M. K. Agarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.218/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-33(1)(2), Badriprasad B. Misty बनाम/ C-11, R. No. 306, Pratyaksh Kar A-401, Panchsheel Residency, Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Sector No. 6, Mahavir Nagar, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acspm 5897 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : ""या"ेप सं./C.O. No.121/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 218/Mum/2015) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Badriprasad B. Misty Ito-33(1)(2), बनाम/ A-401, Panchsheel Residency, C-11, R. No. 306, Pratyaksh Kar Sector No. 6, Mahavir Nagar, Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 067 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 (""या"ेपक /Cross Objector) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Jangid
Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 69C

only issue in dispute in the appeal and the cross objection is in relation to estimation of profit @ 8% on the alleged bogus purchases. While the department is challenging the estimation of profit at 8% as against the addition of entire bogus purchase by the Assessing Officer ... element of such purchase turnover has to be treated as his income. Accordingly, she proceeded to estimate the profit at 8% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.72,76,396/-, which works out to Rs.5,82,100/-. 5. The ld. DR relying upon the observations of the A.O. submitted that