← 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

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 114/AGR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

facts in not deleting the adhoc addition of Rs.1,05,67,01,215/- fully as made by Ld. AO on account of alleged bogus purchases u/s 37(1) and has further erred in sustaining the same to the extent of Rs.60,86,59,200/-, more so when no incriminating material ... action of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.60,86,59,200/- on account of alleged bogus purchases u/s 37(1), is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That having regards to the facts

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 113/AGR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

facts in not deleting the adhoc addition of Rs.1,05,67,01,215/- fully as made by Ld. AO on account of alleged bogus purchases u/s 37(1) and has further erred in sustaining the same to the extent of Rs.60,86,59,200/-, more so when no incriminating material ... action of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.60,86,59,200/- on account of alleged bogus purchases u/s 37(1), is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That having regards to the facts

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Icon Infotech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1774/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner Of Icon Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5(2)(1), 2, 1St Floor, 5Th Floor, Vs. Rubbunissa Manzil, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp: Grant Road Station, M.K. Road, Grant Road (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400007. Pan : Aaaci7604K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Ludhiana [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 16-01-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10, Wherein The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition Amounting To Rs. 1,27,004/-, Being 12.50% Of Rs. 10,16,028/- To 13.88% Of Rs. 10,16,028/- On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchase Made From Suspicious Dealers Le. M/S. Cedilla Technologies Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

amounting to Rs. 1,27,004/-, being 12.50% of Rs. 10,16,028/- to 13.88% of Rs. 10,16,028/- on account of alleged bogus purchase made from suspicious dealers Le. M/s. Cedilla Technologies without appreciating the facts that the assessee 2 has not been able to establish the genuineness ... form of the list, the AO treated the entire purchases made by the assessee from one of such dealers - Cedilla Technologies, as bogus purchase and passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra vs. Vinah Bansal, Agra

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 387/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.387/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit (Central Circle) Shri Vinay Bansal बनाम/ Agra. G-3, Roshanlal Complex Vs. Kinari Bazar, Agra-282003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aelpb-6036-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. S.C. Jain, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur [Cit(A)] Dated 05-08-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 07-09-2021. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Same Is Adjudicated As Under. The Subject Matter Of Appeal Is Addition U/S 68 & Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases. 2. During Assessment Proceedings, It Transpired That The Assessee Obtained Unsecured Loans From 15 Persons As Tabulated In Para-5 Of The Assessment Order. After Examining The Documentary Evidences As Furnished By The Assessee, Ld. Ao Accepted The Loans Partially & Made Addition U/S 68 For Rs.104.90 Lacs With Respect To 7 Individual Lenders.

For Appellant: Sh. S.C. Jain, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

upon perusal of case records, the same is adjudicated as under. The subject matter of appeal is addition u/s 68 and addition of alleged bogus purchases. 2. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee obtained unsecured loans from 15 persons as tabulated in para-5 of the assessment order ... loans partially and made addition u/s 68 for Rs.104.90 Lacs with respect to 7 individual lenders. The Ld. AO made another addition of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.88.52 Lacs with respect to purchases made from M/s Shivam Traders on the ground that these were unexplained purchases. 3. During first appeal