← 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, Madurai vs. Alba Industries Limited, Chennai

ITA 284/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.282 To 287/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20 & Cross-Objection Nos.20 To 25/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20 The Acit, Central Circle-1, Madurai-625 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Alba Industries Ltd., No.32/2, Halls Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. [Pan: Aabcb 5758 J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent / Objector) Cross- Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate 04.09.2024 26.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross-Objections By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Appellate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [In Short 'Cit(A)'] In Relation To The Assessment Orders All Dated 27.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3)/153A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [In Short `The Act'] For The

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

resulting in the net profit to be lower. He contended that, by inflating expenses, the assessee was generating unaccounted funds which were used for on-money payments in relation to property purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Alba Industries Limited, Chennai

ITA 282/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.282 To 287/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20 & Cross-Objection Nos.20 To 25/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20 The Acit, Central Circle-1, Madurai-625 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Alba Industries Ltd., No.32/2, Halls Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. [Pan: Aabcb 5758 J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent / Cross- Objector) Department By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross-Objections By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Appellate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [In Short 'Cit(A)'] In Relation To The Assessment Orders All Dated 27.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3)/153A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [In Short `The Act'] For The

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

resulting in the net profit to be lower. He contended that, by inflating expenses, the assessee was generating unaccounted funds which were used for on-money payments in relation to property purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Beach Minerals Sands Company, Tirunelveli

ITA 1475/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Acit, Central Circle-1, Madurai-625 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S.Beach Minerals Sands Co, 132, Tiruchendur Road, Kuttam, Tirunelveli-627 651. [Pan: Aacfb 5680 P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent / Cross- Objector) Department By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross-Objections By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Appellate Orders Passed By The Learned

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 (AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s.Beach Minerals Sands Co. :: 5 :: unaccounted funds which were used for on-money payments in relation to property purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held that these expenses were