← 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 24(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Bhaskar Tike, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the above

ITA 6080/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6080/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-24(3)(2), Pankaj Bhaskar Tike बनाम/ Room No. 704, C-11, Pratayaksha Kar 21/671, West View Chs, Shastri Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Nagar, Goregaon (W), Vs. (E), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 062 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaept 2598 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Radha Kotyal Narang ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Hitesh M. Shah

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Kotyal NarangFor Respondent: Shri Hitesh M. Shah
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 148Section 69C

which return unserved by the postal authorities. According to the A.O., the following are the details of parties from whom the assessee had made bogus purchases: Sr. No. Name of the parties TIN Purchase amount in Rs. M/s. Sthapana Trade Impex (P.) 49,59,910 1 27610598830V ... Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Enterprises P. Ltd. (in ITA No. 5604 of 2010 dated 17.12.2012), he deleted the addition of bogus purchases. He also directed that GP declared by the assessee at 5% is quite reasonable in view of the fact that

Rasiklal Hiralal & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our directions as discussed above

ITA 260/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rasiklal Hiralal & Co. P. Ltd., Ito 4(3)(2) Ec-4051 & 4053 Bharat Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Diamond Bourse, Bkc Mumbai- Vs. Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacr1854J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Smt. Arti Visanji & Shri Vijay Kumar S. Biyani (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/06/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 29/06/2016

Section 133(6)Section 137Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

exports 2. Copy of purchase invoice/s. 2 to 2 3. Copy of Bank statement being 3 to 3 evidence of payment for the alleged bogus purchases through banking channel 4. Confirmation in respect of above 4 to 5 referred purchases/s 5. Relevant extract of stock book 6 to 6 showing ... such additions are as under; 1. During course of the investigation, the Investigation wing at Mumbai found number of companies who are providing bogus purchases bills to various beneficiaries for a commission 2. Such companies/firms were controlled, managed and operated by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and his associates. 3. As reported

Rasiklal Hiralal & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our directions as discussed above

ITA 259/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rasiklal Hiralal & Co. P. Ltd., Ito 4(3)(2) Ec-4051 & 4053 Bharat Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Diamond Bourse, Bkc Mumbai- Vs. Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacr1854J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Smt. Arti Visanji & Shri Vijay Kumar S. Biyani (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/06/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 29/06/2016

Section 133(6)Section 137Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

exports 2. Copy of purchase invoice/s. 2 to 2 3. Copy of Bank statement being 3 to 3 evidence of payment for the alleged bogus purchases through banking channel 4. Confirmation in respect of above 4 to 5 referred purchases/s 5. Relevant extract of stock book 6 to 6 showing ... such additions are as under; 1. During course of the investigation, the Investigation wing at Mumbai found number of companies who are providing bogus purchases bills to various beneficiaries for a commission 2. Such companies/firms were controlled, managed and operated by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and his associates. 3. As reported

Rasiklal Hiralal & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our directions as discussed above

ITA 258/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rasiklal Hiralal & Co. P. Ltd., Ito 4(3)(2) Ec-4051 & 4053 Bharat Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Diamond Bourse, Bkc Mumbai- Vs. Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacr1854J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Smt. Arti Visanji & Shri Vijay Kumar S. Biyani (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/06/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 29/06/2016

Section 133(6)Section 137Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

exports 2. Copy of purchase invoice/s. 2 to 2 3. Copy of Bank statement being 3 to 3 evidence of payment for the alleged bogus purchases through banking channel 4. Confirmation in respect of above 4 to 5 referred purchases/s 5. Relevant extract of stock book 6 to 6 showing ... such additions are as under; 1. During course of the investigation, the Investigation wing at Mumbai found number of companies who are providing bogus purchases bills to various beneficiaries for a commission 2. Such companies/firms were controlled, managed and operated by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and his associates. 3. As reported

Cms Info Systems P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 5038/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5038/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Cms Info Systems Private Limited Adcit-5(3) Cms House, Plot No.91, Street No.7 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Midc Andheri(E) Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 093. Pan:Aamcs 2311 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratham-Dr Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jotwani-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2016 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,Dtd.23/05/2013 Of The Cit (A)-9,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Firm,Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Computer Systems, Components & Peripherals & Other Allied Services,Filed Its Return Of Income On 13.10. 2010,Declaring Total Income At Rs.Nil.It Filed A Revised Return On 29.09.2011 Showing Income Of Rs.38,79,76,980/-. A Revised Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.09.2011,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,26, 36,760/-.The Assessing Officer (Ao)Completed The Assessment, U/S. 143(3) Of The Act,On 27.02.2013,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.38.55 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani-AR’sFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratham-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

rejected the evidences produced by the assessee without rebutting them. We find that in the case of Rajiv G. Kalathil (supra),the issue of bogus purchases and evidentiary value of inquiry made by sales tax authority was examined.We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the said case which

ITO 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. P R Syndicate, Mumbai

ITA 1895/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1895/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-14(3)(2) M/S. P.R. Syndicate 6Th Floor, Earnest House, 492, Chandra Chowk, M.J. Market Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point Pan:Aaffp 9056 L Mumbai-400 021. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Naveen Gupta-Dr Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश देश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त देश देश 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 12.12.2013 Of Cit(A)-25 Mumbai The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee Firm-Engaged In The Business Of Selling Of Cloth Filed Return Of Income On 31.10.2006, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.50,960/-. The Assessment Was Made U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 15.12.2010 Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.88.55 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala-ARFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69

justice by not supplying the copies of statement and by not providing opportunity of cross examination the addition made by him on account of bogus purchases should have been deleted only on that 3 1895/M/14-PRSyndicate account.However, the FAA sustained the addition @10% of the alleged purchases made during the year.Therefore

Shree Metal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1368/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shree Metal, Vs. Ito, 5487 Basti Harphool Singh, Ward 39(3), Sadar Thana Road, New Delhi. Delhi. (Pan: Aafdj4351C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ved Jain & Ashish Goyal, Adv. Department By: Shri Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 20:06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On Several Grounds Mainly Involving Two Issues. Firstly, As To Whether The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Justified In Rejecting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceedings & The Reassessment Order Are Both Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Secondly, As To Whether The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3,38,147 On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 2. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Ar Pointed Out That Issues Raised In The Present Appeal Is Fully Covered By The Decision Of Delhi Bench Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Ashish Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

quashed. Secondly, as to whether the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,38,147 on account of bogus purchases. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Learned AR pointed out that issues raised in the present appeal is fully covered by the decision of Delhi ... purchase bills provided by the 11 firms/concers controlled and managed by Sh. Rakesh Gupta and Sh. VisheshGupt or their family members is nothing but bogus purchase bills/accommodation bills.” 9. The above facts stated by the Assessing Officer makes it abundantly clear that at the time of formation of the belief