ITAT Rajkot Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal held that the profit element embedded in 'on-money' receipts should be taxed, not the entire amount. For RK Industrial Zone 16, a profit rate of 25% was deemed appropriate, and for RK Industrial Park Phase 5, 53% was estimated. The Tribunal also held that income from on-money receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the money is received, and dismissed the revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the appeal as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of transactions, the Tribunal deemed it fit to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to plead their case before the Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence in pursuing the case before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the AO. The lower authorities' orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in 'on-money' receipts is taxable, not the entire amount. They also ruled that revenue from property sales should be recognized in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' is received. The applicability of ICDS-III was also contested.

The provided judgment text details the facts and issues but does not contain the tribunal's decision or holding. Therefore, the tribunal's decision on the specific grounds of appeal cannot be determined from this excerpt.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the delay due to the assessee's reliance on professional guidance and an unfortunate oversight by their representative. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to grant sufficient opportunity to the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice dated 29.07.2022 was barred by limitation. It was issued beyond the permissible period under the Income Tax Act, read with the relaxation granted under TOLA, 2020, and the interpretation of Supreme Court judgments.

During the hearing, the assessee's counsel stated that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and requested its dismissal. The Departmental Representative raised no objection.

The Tribunal held that while on-money transactions were evident, the entire amount should not be taxed as income. It directed that the addition on account of 'on-money' be made at a rate of 10%, considering the profit element embedded in such transactions and the profit margins in the real estate development business.

The Tribunal held that the entire 'on-money' amount cannot be treated as income, but only the profit element embedded within it. Following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, the profit on 'on-money' was estimated at 10%.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erroneously dismissed the appeal based on the assumption that the assessee had opted for the VSV scheme for the TDS matter, which was not the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The provided judgment excerpt details the facts and arguments but does not contain the tribunal's decision on the appeals. Therefore, what the tribunal held cannot be determined from this text.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence in pursuing the case before the lower authorities, despite multiple notices. While imposing a cost, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the estimated profit on 'on-money' receipts should be taxed at 10%, considering the business nature and past trends. Furthermore, it was decided that unaccounted profit should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' was received, as ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the 'on money' receipts can be taxed, not the entire amount. Considering various precedents and the facts, a profit rate of 10% was deemed fair and reasonable for taxing the unaccounted receipts.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of profit on 'on-money' should be at 10%, considering the business nature and past trends, which is lower than what the CIT(A) had determined. Furthermore, it was held that the 'on-money' receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not the year of receipt, as ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee and the assessee consistently followed the project completion method.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of 'on-money' should be taxed at 10% of the 'on-money' amount, considering the business nature and expenses incurred. It also ruled that ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee as they are a contractee, not a contractor. Income from 'on-money' should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not merely when received.

The Tribunal held that cash sales and collections from debtors, when properly supported by documentation and accepted by tax authorities like VAT and Excise departments, cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The partial disallowance of debtors by the CIT(A) was also found to be incorrect as the AO had accepted the entire sales turnover.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of profit on 'on-money' receipts at 16% by the CIT(A) was excessively high. Citing precedents, the ITAT directed that the addition for 'on-money' should be made at 10%, considering the nature of the business and expenditures incurred from such receipts. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that unaccounted profits from 'on-money' receipts are to be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' is received, as ICDS-III is not applicable to contractees like the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of profit on 'on-money' receipts at 16% by the CIT(A) was too high, considering the assessee's audited profit margin and past judicial pronouncements. It directed the Assessing Officer to make additions at 10% of the 'on-money'. The Tribunal also ruled that the unaccounted profit should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' was received, and that ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the 'on-money' receipts should be taxed, not the entire amount. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal estimated the profit on 'on-money' at 10%.

The tribunal held that the estimation of profit on 'on-money' receipts should be at 10%, considering the nature of the business and past performance. It also ruled that unaccounted profits should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the 'on-money' is received, as ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee who is a contractee, not a contractor.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of 'on-money' needed to be taxed at 10% of the 'on-money' receipt, reducing the higher estimations by the lower authorities. It also ruled that income from unaccounted receipts should be taxed in the year of sale deed execution, not merely upon receipt of 'on-money', and that ICDS-III was not applicable to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of profit on 'on-money' receipts should be at 10%, considering the nature of the business and past audited profits. It was also held that unaccounted profits should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the on-money is received, as ICDS-III is not applicable to contractees.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a "sufficient cause" for the late filing. Upon examining the facts, the Tribunal noted that while the AO and CIT(A) confirmed the addition, the assessee claimed compliance with Section 68 and relied on a Gujarat High Court judgment. The Tribunal decided to provide the assessee an opportunity to further establish the genuineness of the transaction before the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, which was the basis for the assessment. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's brother's case, which dealt with identical facts and issues. Consequently, the disallowance and addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the cash sales were duly recorded in the assessee's books, supported by VAT and excise returns, and that the revenue had not provided any material to prove these sales were fictitious. Regarding cash received from debtors, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had accepted the entire sales turnover and thus, the CIT(A) should not have made a partial disallowance of debtors.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the on-money receipts, not the entire amount, is taxable. They found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were excessive and directed that the profit be estimated at a reasonable rate of 10%.

The Tribunal held that the grounds challenging the validity of notice issued under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act were dismissed in light of previous decisions in the assessee's own group cases. Regarding the profit estimation on 'on-money', the Tribunal found the higher estimations by the lower authorities to be excessive and, following jurisdictional High Court judgments, directed that the profit element on 'on-money' should be estimated at a uniform rate of 10%. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of profit on 'on-money' at 10% was fair, considering the business nature and expenditures. It also ruled that income from 'on-money' receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the money is received, citing previous judgments and the inapplicability of ICDS-III to contractees.

The ITAT held that the estimation of profit on 'on-money' at 10% was fair, considering the business and expenditure. The tribunal also ruled that ICDS-III is not applicable to the assessee, and income from 'on-money' receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the money is received, citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of profit on 'on-money' at 16% by the CIT(A) was too high, considering the assessee's audited profit margin and the nature of the business. It directed the Assessing Officer to make the addition at 10%. Furthermore, it was held that ICDS-III is not applicable to contractees, and income from 'on-money' receipts should be taxed in the year the sale deed is executed, not when the money is received.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 of the Act by providing details of the partners' identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the AO had conducted independent inquiries, and the PCIT's observation that no explanations were provided was factually incorrect. Citing various High Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that even if creditworthiness was not fully satisfactory, the capital contribution could not be taxed in the hands of the firm.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. The notice for reopening was issued by non-jurisdictional officers and the approval for reopening lacked independent application of mind and was not properly signed, violating procedural safeguards. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. Key reasons included issuance of notices by non-jurisdictional officers, incorrect facts relied upon by the AO, and mechanical approval for reopening without proper application of mind by the designated authority.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in unaccounted receipts can be taxed, not the entire amount. Citing previous judgments, it directed the Assessing Officer to tax the 'on-money' at 10%, considering the business realities and the assessee's average profit rate.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence in responding to notices from lower authorities and the AO. While the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee involved substantive issues of addition of income, the appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed on technical grounds of delay.

The Tribunal considered grounds related to the validity of notices issued under section 148, additions made based on estimated profits, and the year of taxation for on-money receipts. The appeals were consolidated due to common issues.

The Tribunal noted that the grounds raised by both the assessee and the revenue were largely academic or contentious. The appeals have been consolidated for disposal as they involve common and identical issues.

The tribunal noted that most grounds raised by both the assessee and revenue were academic or contentious. It focused on the core controversies: the validity of proceedings initiated under section 147 due to invalid notice under section 148, and the addition of estimated profit on on-money receipts, including the year of assessment.

The Tribunal noted that most grounds raised by both parties were academic or contentious. It focused on the main grievances, including the validity of the Section 148 notice and the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147. The Tribunal also considered the addition of profit estimated at 12% of 'on-money' receipts and the year of assessment for such income.

The Tribunal held that the entire 'on-money' receipts cannot be taxed as income, and only the profit element embedded therein is taxable. Following a coordinate bench's decision in similar cases, the Tribunal directed the AO to tax the 'on-money' at the rate of 10%.

The Tribunal held that the profit element embedded in unaccounted 'on-money' receipts, not the entire amount, is taxable. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal directed that the 'on-money' should be taxed at a rate of 10%.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the protective addition because the substantive addition was deleted in the firm's case. However, the ITAT found that the CIT(A) order for the firm was not on record. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the matter and restored it to the AO to verify if the amount was added in the hands of Titanium Buildcon LLP and to re-adjudicate.

The tribunal addressed grounds related to the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 based on seized data. It also considered issues concerning the estimation of profit on 'on-money' receipts and the year of taxation for such income.

The tribunal considered grounds related to the validity of notices issued under section 148 and the assessment proceedings initiated under section 147. It also examined issues concerning the addition of income based on estimated profit and the year of assessment for on-money receipts. The tribunal noted that many grounds were academic or contentious.

The tribunal considered grounds related to the validity of notices issued under section 148, the correctness of additions made based on estimated profit on unaccounted receipts, and the year in which such income should be taxed. The tribunal noted that many grounds were academic or contentious, focusing on the main grievances.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had raised multiple grounds of appeal, but focused on the core grievances. Key among these were the validity of the notice issued under section 148, which the assessee argued rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid, and the addition made by estimating profit at 16% of on-money receipts, which the assessee contended was bad in law and excessive.

The tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 based on seized digital data revealing substantial unaccounted receipts and payments for the 'The Spire' project. The assessee's representative confirmed that a specific component in an excel sheet represented 'on-money' received per unit sale. The appeals involved several grounds raised by both parties, some of which were considered academic or contentious.

The Tribunal noted that most grounds raised by both parties were academic or contentious. It focused on the core controversies, including the validity of notices issued under section 148, additions made by estimating profit on 'on money' receipts, and the correct year for taxing unaccounted profits.