← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. Smt. Jyoti Saroop Grover, Malout

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 434/ASR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 335/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Dcit - Central Circle (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) Amritsar बनाम/ Vs. Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Punjab-143001 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 434/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit - Central Circle Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Amritsar (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) बनाम/ Vs. Punjab-143001 Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) –Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) –Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23-12-2022. The sole that issue that fall for our consideration is addition of alleged bogus purchases. The assessee, by way of additional grounds, has also challenged the enhancement made by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. Having heard rival submissions ... dated 05-09-2023) rendered on similar factual matrix. Considering the same, Ld. CIT(A) finally held that entire addition of alleged bogus purchases could not be made in the hands of the assessee. 3.2 It was further observed by Ld CIT(A) that the assessee was engaged in procuring

Jyoti Saroop Grover Prop. Ms Sant Metal Industries Sekhu Road, Ward 7 Malout, Punjab vs. The AO NFAC Delhi Jurisdictional AO the ACIT Central Circle Amritsar, Punjab

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 335/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 335/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Dcit - Central Circle (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) Amritsar बनाम/ Vs. Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Punjab-143001 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 434/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit - Central Circle Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Amritsar (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) बनाम/ Vs. Punjab-143001 Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) –Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) –Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23-12-2022. The sole that issue that fall for our consideration is addition of alleged bogus purchases. The assessee, by way of additional grounds, has also challenged the enhancement made by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. Having heard rival submissions ... dated 05-09-2023) rendered on similar factual matrix. Considering the same, Ld. CIT(A) finally held that entire addition of alleged bogus purchases could not be made in the hands of the assessee. 3.2 It was further observed by Ld CIT(A) that the assessee was engaged in procuring

Pradeep D Charya ITO 19.2.4, Mumbai vs. Parasmal Fozharaj Sanghvi HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5832/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.5832/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito 19(2)(4), Mumbai V/S. Parasmal Fozharaj 507, Piramal Chambers, बिाम Sanghvi Huf Lalbaug, Mumbai 400012 10/2 Atul Niwas, Khetwadi Road Corner, Mumbai 400004 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaahp5379M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya & Shri Hansraj Sanghvi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya & ShriFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, SR
Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) has erred in restricting addition made @4.76 % as against @ 12.5% of total bogus purchases of Rs. 5,79,12,219/- from six hawala traders, by ignoring the fact that the Sales Tax Department Maharashtra State, has proved beyond doubt ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CITYA) has erred in restricting addition made @ 4.76 % as against @ 12.5% of total bogus purchases of Rs. 5,79,12,219/- from 6 hawala traders, by ignoring the fact that Sales Tax Department and subsequently, the DGIT (Iru), Mumbai during their

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Ahluwalia Contracts India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 5104/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Ahluwalia Contracts India Income Tax, Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-31, A-177, Phase-1, Tehkhand New Delhi. Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabca4303K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No.37/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5104/Del/2024) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम M/S Ahluwalia Contracts Deputy Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, A-177, Phase-1, Tehkhand Central Circle-31, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aabca4303K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 14ASection 69C

No.240, 241, 242, 260 & 261 of 2003, vide order dated 20.06.2016 and directing the AO to re-assess because taxing only certain percentage of bogus purchases goes against the principles of Section 69C of the Act. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in taking into consideration ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act); and ii) Addition made as per para 4.11 in a sum ofRs.10,20,000/- on account of alleged bogus purchases. These two additions which form the Ground of Appeal of the Department in the Form-36 as submitted by them add up to Rs.16