← 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

Mercury Internaitonal, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 24, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 7588/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7584 To 7588/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 To 2011-2012) M/S Mercury International, Vs. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai 207, Sant Tukaram Road, Opp.Sita Hotel, Iron Market, Mumbai-400009 & M/S Kagalwala & Associates स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafm 6318 D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivram&Ms.Neelam Jadhav याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-2008 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Which Relates To Validity Of Reopening As Well As Merit Of The Addition Made On Account Of Bogus Purchase. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. As The Facts & Circumstances In All The Years Under Consideration Are Same, As A Lead Cease, We Shall Take The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Ship Chandlers, General Merchants & Suppliers Of Marine

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivram&Ms.Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)

assessee in all the years under consideration, which relates to validity of reopening as well as merit of the addition made on account of bogus purchase. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. As the facts and circumstances in all the years under consideration are same ... made an addition of Rs. 46,29,653/- on the ground that the assessee would have made an additional margin @ 10% on the said bogus purchases. 4. Against the above order, the assessee reached to the CIT(A), who upheld the validity of reopening. However, after discussing the issue

Mercury Internaitonal, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 24, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 7587/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7584 To 7588/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 To 2011-2012) M/S Mercury International, Vs. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai 207, Sant Tukaram Road, Opp.Sita Hotel, Iron Market, Mumbai-400009 & M/S Kagalwala & Associates स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafm 6318 D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivram&Ms.Neelam Jadhav याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-2008 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Which Relates To Validity Of Reopening As Well As Merit Of The Addition Made On Account Of Bogus Purchase. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. As The Facts & Circumstances In All The Years Under Consideration Are Same, As A Lead Cease, We Shall Take The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Ship Chandlers, General Merchants & Suppliers Of Marine

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivram&Ms.Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)

assessee in all the years under consideration, which relates to validity of reopening as well as merit of the addition made on account of bogus purchase. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. As the facts and circumstances in all the years under consideration are same ... made an addition of Rs. 46,29,653/- on the ground that the assessee would have made an additional margin @ 10% on the said bogus purchases. 4. Against the above order, the assessee reached to the CIT(A), who upheld the validity of reopening. However, after discussing the issue

Mercury Internaitonal, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 24, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 7586/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7584 To 7588/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 To 2011-2012) M/S Mercury International, Vs. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai 207, Sant Tukaram Road, Opp.Sita Hotel, Iron Market, Mumbai-400009 & M/S Kagalwala & Associates स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafm 6318 D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivram&Ms.Neelam Jadhav याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-2008 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Which Relates To Validity Of Reopening As Well As Merit Of The Addition Made On Account Of Bogus Purchase. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. As The Facts & Circumstances In All The Years Under Consideration Are Same, As A Lead Cease, We Shall Take The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Ship Chandlers, General Merchants & Suppliers Of Marine

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivram&Ms.Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)

assessee in all the years under consideration, which relates to validity of reopening as well as merit of the addition made on account of bogus purchase. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. As the facts and circumstances in all the years under consideration are same ... made an addition of Rs. 46,29,653/- on the ground that the assessee would have made an additional margin @ 10% on the said bogus purchases. 4. Against the above order, the assessee reached to the CIT(A), who upheld the validity of reopening. However, after discussing the issue

Mercury Internaitonal, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 24, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 7585/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7584 To 7588/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 To 2011-2012) M/S Mercury International, Vs. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai 207, Sant Tukaram Road, Opp.Sita Hotel, Iron Market, Mumbai-400009 & M/S Kagalwala & Associates स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafm 6318 D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivram&Ms.Neelam Jadhav याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-2008 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Which Relates To Validity Of Reopening As Well As Merit Of The Addition Made On Account Of Bogus Purchase. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. As The Facts & Circumstances In All The Years Under Consideration Are Same, As A Lead Cease, We Shall Take The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Ship Chandlers, General Merchants & Suppliers Of Marine

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivram&Ms.Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)

assessee in all the years under consideration, which relates to validity of reopening as well as merit of the addition made on account of bogus purchase. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. As the facts and circumstances in all the years under consideration are same ... made an addition of Rs. 46,29,653/- on the ground that the assessee would have made an additional margin @ 10% on the said bogus purchases. 4. Against the above order, the assessee reached to the CIT(A), who upheld the validity of reopening. However, after discussing the issue

Mercury Internaitonal, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 24, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 7584/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7584 To 7588/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 To 2011-2012) M/S Mercury International, Vs. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai 207, Sant Tukaram Road, Opp.Sita Hotel, Iron Market, Mumbai-400009 & M/S Kagalwala & Associates स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafm 6318 D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivram&Ms.Neelam Jadhav याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-2008 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Which Relates To Validity Of Reopening As Well As Merit Of The Addition Made On Account Of Bogus Purchase. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. As The Facts & Circumstances In All The Years Under Consideration Are Same, As A Lead Cease, We Shall Take The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Ship Chandlers, General Merchants & Suppliers Of Marine

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivram&Ms.Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)

assessee in all the years under consideration, which relates to validity of reopening as well as merit of the addition made on account of bogus purchase. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. As the facts and circumstances in all the years under consideration are same ... made an addition of Rs. 46,29,653/- on the ground that the assessee would have made an additional margin @ 10% on the said bogus purchases. 4. Against the above order, the assessee reached to the CIT(A), who upheld the validity of reopening. However, after discussing the issue