← 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

ITO 25(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

ITA 5238/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5238/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-25(2)(2) M/S. Pankaj Enterprises 46-A, 2Nd Floor, Ganjawala Apt. No.2 C-11 Bldg., Room No.106, Pratyakshakar Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Ganjawala Lane,Borivali(W),Mumbai-92. Mumbai-400 051. Pan:Aaafp 2176 J (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" Revenue By: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang-Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम 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 लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 10.05.2013,Of The Cit (A)-35, Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Has Filed The Present Appeal.None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee .We Are Deciding The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Departmental Representative (Dr).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang-DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

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

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Lachhmandas U Talreja (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7644/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.7644 & 7645/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Ito-14(2)-3, Lachhmandas U Talreja (Huf) बनाम/ Earnest House, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 282, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahl 0990 E (राज"व/ Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.6581 & 6582/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Lachhmandas U Talreja (Huf) Ito-14(2)-3, बनाम/ Earnest House, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 282, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahl 0990 E ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व/ Revenue) : राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidya "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tralshwala सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 11.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2004-05 & 2005-06, Preferred U/S. 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter). The Issues Arising Being (A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06) Lachhmandas U Talreja (Huf) Common, The Same Were Listed For Hearing & Were Accordingly Heard Together – The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Respective Cases Of The Parties Being Also The Same & Are Being Disposed Of Vide A Common, Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshwalaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidya
Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 253

through the banking channel; the amount withdrawn and returned in cash to the ‘buyer’ in cash after deducting commission @ 1%. To cover such ‘sales’, bogus purchase bills were entered in books. Blank purchase bills in the name of 16 parties (6 bundles each) were found during survey, which were admitted ... confirming the addition at least to the extent of peak of the purchases made from such parties on account of bogus purchases made in cash from the open market out of unaccounted cash, in view of the decision held by the Hon'ble ITAT's C-Bench, Ahmedabad

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Inderpal Singh Wadhawan, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 952/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

erred in deleting the addition of RS 3,60,08,930/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases. 2. The CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.12,00,49,800/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loans ... first ground of appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 36008930/-. This addition has been by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases. During the year, assessee has shown purchase of Rs. 120029767/- from 14 parties listed at para No. 3.1 of the assessment orders

Mr. Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

erred in deleting the addition of RS 3,60,08,930/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases. 2. The CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.12,00,49,800/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loans ... first ground of appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 36008930/-. This addition has been by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases. During the year, assessee has shown purchase of Rs. 120029767/- from 14 parties listed at para No. 3.1 of the assessment orders

Mr. Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1155/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

erred in deleting the addition of RS 3,60,08,930/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases. 2. The CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.12,00,49,800/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loans ... first ground of appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 36008930/-. This addition has been by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases. During the year, assessee has shown purchase of Rs. 120029767/- from 14 parties listed at para No. 3.1 of the assessment orders