← 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

Ashok Bhansali, Siliguri vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2644/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2644/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Ashok Bhansali, Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri New Darjeeling More, Shiv Nagar, Po : Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri-734003 Pan No. :Aevpb 6366 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

against the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.1,01,93,175/- as made by the AO on account of bogus purchases u/s.69C of the Act. 3. Facts in brief are that the case of the assessee was reopened after the AO received information from DDIT ... Unit-4(3), Kolkata that the assessee is beneficiary of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.1,01,93,175/- from M/s Ultra Trade Mart. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2022 after passing the order u/s.148A(d) of 2 the Act prior to which the show

Hi Tech Foods, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 74/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.54/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.56/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.58/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Hi Tech Foods Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Nh-22, Sector-6, Upmohal Parwanoo, Aaykar Bhawan-1 Vs. Sector-Vi, Solan (Hp) -173220 Shimla (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfh-7996-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

department were not sufficient to reopen the case of the assessee. 3.3 After rejecting aforesaid arguments, Ld. AO continued to make the allegations of bogus purchases against the assessee by referring to the statement of Shri Rajesh Mittal (Proprietor of M/s Kamna Overseas) and Shri Sanjiv Mittal who used

Hi Tech Foods, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 58/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.54/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.56/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.58/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Hi Tech Foods Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Nh-22, Sector-6, Upmohal Parwanoo, Aaykar Bhawan-1 Vs. Sector-Vi, Solan (Hp) -173220 Shimla (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfh-7996-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

department were not sufficient to reopen the case of the assessee. 3.3 After rejecting aforesaid arguments, Ld. AO continued to make the allegations of bogus purchases against the assessee by referring to the statement of Shri Rajesh Mittal (Proprietor of M/s Kamna Overseas) and Shri Sanjiv Mittal who used

Hi Tech Foods, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 57/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.54/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.56/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.58/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Hi Tech Foods Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Nh-22, Sector-6, Upmohal Parwanoo, Aaykar Bhawan-1 Vs. Sector-Vi, Solan (Hp) -173220 Shimla (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfh-7996-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

department were not sufficient to reopen the case of the assessee. 3.3 After rejecting aforesaid arguments, Ld. AO continued to make the allegations of bogus purchases against the assessee by referring to the statement of Shri Rajesh Mittal (Proprietor of M/s Kamna Overseas) and Shri Sanjiv Mittal who used

Hi Tech Foods, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 56/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.54/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.56/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.58/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Hi Tech Foods Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Nh-22, Sector-6, Upmohal Parwanoo, Aaykar Bhawan-1 Vs. Sector-Vi, Solan (Hp) -173220 Shimla (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfh-7996-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

department were not sufficient to reopen the case of the assessee. 3.3 After rejecting aforesaid arguments, Ld. AO continued to make the allegations of bogus purchases against the assessee by referring to the statement of Shri Rajesh Mittal (Proprietor of M/s Kamna Overseas) and Shri Sanjiv Mittal who used

Hi Tech Foods, Solan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 55/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.54/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.56/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.58/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Hi Tech Foods Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Nh-22, Sector-6, Upmohal Parwanoo, Aaykar Bhawan-1 Vs. Sector-Vi, Solan (Hp) -173220 Shimla (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfh-7996-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

department were not sufficient to reopen the case of the assessee. 3.3 After rejecting aforesaid arguments, Ld. AO continued to make the allegations of bogus purchases against the assessee by referring to the statement of Shri Rajesh Mittal (Proprietor of M/s Kamna Overseas) and Shri Sanjiv Mittal who used

Hi Tech Foods, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 54/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.54/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.56/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.58/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Hi Tech Foods Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Nh-22, Sector-6, Upmohal Parwanoo, Aaykar Bhawan-1 Vs. Sector-Vi, Solan (Hp) -173220 Shimla (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfh-7996-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

department were not sufficient to reopen the case of the assessee. 3.3 After rejecting aforesaid arguments, Ld. AO continued to make the allegations of bogus purchases against the assessee by referring to the statement of Shri Rajesh Mittal (Proprietor of M/s Kamna Overseas) and Shri Sanjiv Mittal who used

Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo vs. Ajay Kadian, Kala Amb (Sirmour)

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 660/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Shri Ajay Kadian बनाम/ Sco 35F, Hpmc Road Block-O, Ras Industries, Trilokpur Road Vs. Sector-2, Parwanoo (H.P.) - 173220 Kala, Amb. Sirmour (H.P.) 173030 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bndpk-3045-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 29-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 26-12-2022. From Grounds Of Appeal, It Is Quite Evident That The Issues That Fall For Our Consideration Are – (I) Addition On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchase; & (Ii) Addition Of Cash Deposit & Time

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

From grounds of appeal, it is quite evident that the issues that fall for our consideration are – (i) Addition on account of alleged bogus purchase; & (ii) Addition of cash deposit and time deposit. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under ... Addition of Alleged Bogus Purchases 2.1 The assessee’s case was scrutinized to examine the purchases. The assessee is stated to be engaged in production of lead ingots through recycling of waste lead acid batteries. In support of purchases, the assessee furnished financial statements, bank account details, list of sundry

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Raipur

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 455/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 455/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh, New Purena, Circle-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Ravigram, Ravigram S O, Civil Lines, Raipur, C. G., 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Ajnps2776H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate (Virtually) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 19/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69C

unverified and an addition of Rs.2,42,54,206/- (Rs. 5,55,96,004-3,13,41,798/-) is being made on account of bogus purchases u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and added to assessee's total income and taxed accordingly.” [Emphasis supplied] 3.1 Aggrieved with the assessment ... doubt the sales at any stage of the assessment proceedings. The assessee further submitted that without doubting the sales, the additions on alleged bogus purchases cannot be made. After perusal of the written submissions of the Assessee, it is clear that the AO never doubted the sales made