← 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, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Sportking India Limited, Village Kanech Gt Road

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 16/CHANDI/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 16/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-Central Circle-2 M/S Sportking India Limited बनाम/ Sco 1-6, 3Rd Floor Village Kanech, Gt Road, Sahnewal Vs. Kichlu Nagar, Ludhiana-141001 Khurd, Punjab 141120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-3037-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.30/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No.16/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Sportking India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-2 बनाम/ Village Kanech, Gt Road, Sco 1-6, 3Rd Floor Vs. Sahnewal Khurd, Punjab 141120 Kichlu Nagar, Ludhiana-141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-3037-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca) & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Revenue Is In Further Appeal Before Us For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) & Ms. DeepaliFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 68

Rs.33.82 Crores. 2.2 However, the case was reopened pursuant to receipt of certain information from ITO (Inv.), Gurgaon regarding bogus purchases as made by the assessee. After recording reasons, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 31-03- 2018 which was duly been ... search proceedings. This assessment has been reopened by Ld. AO pursuant to receipt of information from the investigation wing that the assessee allegedly made bogus purchases from three entities as admitted by those entities during the course of certain proceedings in their respective cases. Armed with this information

Ajit Anant Joshi, Thane vs. Deputy Commisisoner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 700/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Ajit Anant Joshi Deputy Commissioner Of 22 Parijat Society Kashish Income Tax Park, Thane Check Naka, Circle 1, Qureshi Mansion, Vs. Thane (W), 400604. Gokhale Road, Thane-400602. Pan: Adnpj6782A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Ambalal Jain, Ca Revenue : Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit (A)-5 Kolkata, Vide Appeal No. Cit(A), Mumbai-40/10078/2016-17 (Manual Appeal Register Number: 8/2016-17) Dated 28.11.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer 29(1)(1), Mumbai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 24.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1) On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Upholding The Order Passed By Ld. A.O. U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio, In Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri. Ambalal Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69C

circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A)/A.O. have erred in making the addition of Rs. 17,00,076 as bogus purchases u/s 69C of the Act without providing a cross examination opportunity and without providing a copy of such third party statements relied upon leading ... natural justice. 3) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)/A.O. erred in making the addition alleging bogus purchases solely based on the investigation by third party investigating agency (sales tax department) and without making any further inquiries to substantiate such addition