← 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

Kshetrapal Gold Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kshetrapal Gold Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sf-1, Kush Avenue, Mandvi Ni Ward 2(1)(2), Pole, Manek Chowk, Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380001 Pan : Aafck 6724 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (A) Is Against Law, Equity & Justice. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Rejection Of Books Of Accounts In Contravention To The Provisions Of Act. 3. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Addition Made By The Ld. A.O. U/S 68 Of The Act Even After Rejection Books Of Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 145Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

where sales vouchers and stock registers were not maintained or where there were deficiencies and discrepancies in the books of accounts or where bogus purchases were recorded and opening and closing stock was not verifiable. As pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, in terms of provisions

Greta Energy Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 1606/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1563/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer M/S.Greta Energy Limited Corporate Ward-2(3) बनाम/ Old No.22, New No.34, Chennai. Balaji Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcg-3417-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1606/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S.Greta Energy Limited Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Corporate Ward-2(3) Old No.22, New No.34, Balaji Nagar 1St Street, Chennai. Vs. Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcg-3417-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (Ca)-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69CSection 80

sole issue that arises for our consideration is addition made by Ld. AO on account of alleged bogus purchases. The Ld. AR has filed an application under Rule 29 of The Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and prayed for admission of additional evidences which inter-alia, include MVAT Form ... emerges that originally the return of income was scrutinized u/s 143(3). However, the case was reopened on the allegation that the assessee made bogus purchases of Rs.92.43 Lacs from an entity M/s Shree Om Sai Industries Pvt. Ltd. Though various notices were issued to the assessee during assessment proceedings

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Greta Energy Limited, Chennai

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 1563/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1563/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer M/S.Greta Energy Limited Corporate Ward-2(3) बनाम/ Old No.22, New No.34, Chennai. Balaji Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcg-3417-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1606/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S.Greta Energy Limited Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Corporate Ward-2(3) Old No.22, New No.34, Balaji Nagar 1St Street, Chennai. Vs. Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcg-3417-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (Ca)-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69CSection 80

sole issue that arises for our consideration is addition made by Ld. AO on account of alleged bogus purchases. The Ld. AR has filed an application under Rule 29 of The Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and prayed for admission of additional evidences which inter-alia, include MVAT Form ... emerges that originally the return of income was scrutinized u/s 143(3). However, the case was reopened on the allegation that the assessee made bogus purchases of Rs.92.43 Lacs from an entity M/s Shree Om Sai Industries Pvt. Ltd. Though various notices were issued to the assessee during assessment proceedings