← All Phrases

“on-money”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69BSection 69B1,574 judgments

The decision most relied on for on-money is CIT v. President Industries (258 ITR 654), cited in 471 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on on-money

CIT v. President Industries
258 ITR 654 · 2002 · High Court
471
citing judgments

When books of account are rejected and unaccounted sales or receipts are discovered, the income addition is restricted to the net profit element embedded in these undisclosed transactions, not the entire sale proceeds or receipts, especially if corresponding purchases are not proven to be outside the books.

CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar
263 ITR 610 · 2003 · High Court
212
citing judgments

When making an addition for unaccounted receipts, on-money, or non-genuine purchases/sales, the addition should be restricted to the estimated profit element embedded in such transactions, rather than the entire gross amount, particularly when evidence of corresponding expenditure is incomplete. This estimation often involves applying a net profit rate.

CIT v. Girish Chaudhary
296 ITR 619 · 2008 · High Court
175
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on "dumb documents" or vague loose papers seized during a search that merely indicate rates without specific corroborative material linking them to the assessee's unaccounted transactions. The presumption under Section 292C may not apply to such documents.

Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Central-2 v. Umesh Ishrani
108 Taxmann.com 437 · 2019 · High Court
168
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made solely based on entries in loose papers found during a search without conducting any independent inquiry or verification from the alleged seller or developer. Reliance solely on digital records without corroborative evidence is insufficient for an addition.

CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah
307 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
166
citing judgments

Additions on account of on-money receipts cannot be justified solely based on loose papers or 'sauda-chithis' without evidence of actual payment or a clear indication of a completed transaction within those documents.

CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja
302 ITR 63 · 2008 · High Court
147
citing judgments

When unaccounted receipts or suppressed sales are detected and books of account are rejected under Section 145(3), additions to income must be restricted to the profit element embedded in such transactions, not the entire transaction value. This profit element is to be estimated by considering the assessee's regular profit ratio as per books of account.

CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.
159 ITR 71 · 1986 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

The burden of proving an understatement of consideration or the receipt of 'on-money' lies solely with the Revenue, which must provide cogent evidence of actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond mere estimates or suspicion. Additions cannot be made based on assumptions like differences from circle rates without such evidence.

Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT
304 ITR 52 · 2008 · High Court
132
citing judgments

When assessing income from undisclosed or unrecorded sales, the entire sale proceeds cannot be added to the assessee's income; instead, only the net profit embedded in such unaccounted sales, determined by applying the assessee's net profit rate, should be taxed.

Judgments citing on-money

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kishore Kumar Jain, Chennai

ITA 2847/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2847, 2848 & 2849 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Kishore Kumar Jain, Vs.62, Bvk Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. [Pan: Aahpj-0401-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. 13.03.2025 26.05.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, All Dated 10.09.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Of, By This Consolidated Order. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Common Grounds Of Appeal For All The

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

through transactions involving inflation of ‘old gold refining losses' debited in the books of accounts of the company and the same was applied/utilised towards on-money payment for investments in properties in the name of the assessee and company for the commercial use of the company, including the subject properties ... purchase out of the undisclosed income is tabulated as under, as disclosed before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission: S.No. Location Assessment Year On-money payment in INR Registered in the name of 1 Vijayawada 2012-13 4.46 crores Shri. Kishore Kumar Jain 2 Trichy 2012-13 4.25 crores Shri. Kishore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-16, Delhi vs. Bharat Bhushan Suri, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2957/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2957/Del/2023, A.Y. 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Bharat Bhushan Suri Tax, Central Circle-16, E-248, Greater Kailash I, E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi Ara Centre, Delhi Pan: Ahnpp6394A New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Sh. Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate Date Of Hearing 27/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal If The Revenue For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter, The ‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.08.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [Hereinafter, The ‘Cit(A)’].

Section 132Section 153CSection 69A

assessee along with his brother has received Rs.23,08,26,446/- (Rs.27,08,26,446/- minus Rs.4,00,00,000/-) in cash as on-money over and above the registered sale consideration and taxed the proportionate on-money receipt in the hands of the sellers under section ... mentioned in the seized material with the prevailing market price and found the same in tune/harmony. It was further argued that the payment of on-money in real estate was an open secret. None of the parties to the real estate transaction will admit the receipt & payment of the

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. M/S Industrial Mineral Co., 100% Eou, Tuticorin

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 529/CHNY/2023[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69B

property. 12. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the assessing officer based on the seized loose sheet had assumed that there was on-money payment in the purchase of immoveable property at second avenue, Harrington Road and unless the contents of loose sheet is corroborated by documentary evidence

Industrial Mineral Co, 100%Eou, Tuticorin vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 390/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69B

property. 12. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the assessing officer based on the seized loose sheet had assumed that there was on-money payment in the purchase of immoveable property at second avenue, Harrington Road and unless the contents of loose sheet is corroborated by documentary evidence