← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Deep Infraprojects LLP, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1561/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1561/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Deep Infraprojects Llp 10Th Floorhouse, Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Nr. Ambawadi Circle, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfd3530J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Dhrunal Bhatt & Shri Gulab Thakor, A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Arvind Kumar, Cit. Dr 22/01/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 05.07.2024 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Purchased A Land Situated At Ambli Road, Ahmedabad During The Year For A Consideration Of Rs.75 Crore, As Per The Executed Sale Deed. In The Course Of Search Conducted At The Residential Premises Of One Shri Divyang Vyas, Certain Documents Were Found, As Per Which It Transpired That Certain On-Money Was Paid In The Purchase Transaction Of This Land. In The Course Of

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri DhrunalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT. DR
Section 69B

course of search conducted at the residential premises of one Shri Divyang Vyas, certain documents were found, as per which it transpired that certain on-money was paid in the purchase transaction of this land. In the course of ITA No. 1561/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Deep Infraprojects ... documents were seized, was not involved in that transaction and no brokerage was paid to him. Further that no evidence for payment of any on-money was recorded in the seized documents. The assessee had also filed a copy of Registered Valuer’s Report, as per which the value