ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. WALLFORT PROPERTIES PVT LTDQ, RAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that only the profit embedded in 'on-money' receipts is taxable, not the entire amount, as a portion is typically used for unaccounted expenses. Regarding bogus expenditure, the Tribunal noted that the Department had accepted similar transactions in a prior assessment year without change in facts.
What were the facts?
During a search, the Revenue found evidence of 'on-money' transactions in real estate sales. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the entire 'on-money' as income, while the Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the addition to the profit element. The AO also disallowed purchases and contract payments treated as bogus expenditure.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire 'on-money' received by the assessee is taxable as income, or only the profit element. Whether the disallowance of purchases and contract payments as bogus expenditure is justified when similar transactions were accepted in a prior year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 132,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 139(1),Section 127,Section 148,Section 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, “DB” RAIPUR
Before: SHRI R.K PANDA & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The captioned appeals preferred by the Revenue emanates from the respective orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals), Raipur-3 dated 19.08.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21 & 2023-24 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
At the very outset, parties herein conceded that the facts and circumstances and issues involved in both these appeals are absolutel
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026