← 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

Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for

ITA 2111/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, B Wing, Leela Efcee, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar-364002. बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 2135/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar. Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., बनाम / Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar-364002. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aagcg8956L अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Assessee By : Revenue By : प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, Ar Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26/06/2025

For Appellant: Revenue by
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

without jurisdiction. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in partly confirming the addition of alleged bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.7,00,184/-. ITA Nos.2111 & 2135/Ahd/2024 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT ... erred in law and on facts in partly confirming the addition of alleged bogus purchases made by Ld. AO without providing material relied upon and opportunity of cross-examination resulting in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

deleting the addition of Rs.6,67,08,792/- and Rs.2,93,25,267/- which were added on the ground that assessee has made bogus purchases from two concerns, namely M/s S.A.Agro International and M/s Ridhi Sidhi Impex which are controlled by one Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta. 8. Though the facts ... from M/s. S.A. Agra International & amounting to Rs. 1,04,66,382/- from M/s Umesh Kumar Vivek Kumar. These purchases have been treated as bogus purchases on the basis of statement of Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta and these two firms are the proprietorship concern of the family members