← 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

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 20(1), Mumbai vs. Jignesh Harshad Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3182/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhrijignesh Harshad Mehta V/S. National Faceless Appeal 16/40, 10Th Floor, बनाम Centre, Delhi Navjeevan Society, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm4811C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assistant Commissioner Of V/S. Jignesh Harshad Mehta Income Tax, Circle 20(1) बनाम 16/40, 10Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Piramal Navjeevan Society, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, Central, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400008 Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm4811C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Krishnakumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

well as in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has grossly erred in confirming addition of 25% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 7,20,30,027, based on unsubstantiated information received by the Learned Income Tax Officer from the Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward ... well as in Law, the Appellant has been denied the opportunity to cross-examine the evidence / persons based on whom the addition of alleged bogus purchases has been directed by the Learned Assessing Officer. 4. Under the circumstances the Appellant has been denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case

Jignesh Harshad Mehta, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2680/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhrijignesh Harshad Mehta V/S. National Faceless Appeal 16/40, 10Th Floor, बनाम Centre, Delhi Navjeevan Society, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm4811C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assistant Commissioner Of V/S. Jignesh Harshad Mehta Income Tax, Circle 20(1) बनाम 16/40, 10Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Piramal Navjeevan Society, Mumbai Chambers, Lalbaug, Central, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400008 Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm4811C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Krishnakumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

well as in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has grossly erred in confirming addition of 25% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 7,20,30,027, based on unsubstantiated information received by the Learned Income Tax Officer from the Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward ... well as in Law, the Appellant has been denied the opportunity to cross-examine the evidence / persons based on whom the addition of alleged bogus purchases has been directed by the Learned Assessing Officer. 4. Under the circumstances the Appellant has been denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case