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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.