← 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

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 996/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

same was on the basis of a loose sheet found during the course of search. The assessee produced shareholders who denied having received on-money by way of cash over and above cheque payments. The genuineness of the document was also questioned on the ground that Shri M. Mohan ... make payment to himself and acknowledge receipt thereof. The assessee denied having made any cash payment and also produced shareholders who denied having received on-money by way of cash over and above cheque payments. Therefore, this addition stem from uncorroborated loose sheet which would not hold much evidentiary value

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 995/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

same was on the basis of a loose sheet found during the course of search. The assessee produced shareholders who denied having received on-money by way of cash over and above cheque payments. The genuineness of the document was also questioned on the ground that Shri M. Mohan ... make payment to himself and acknowledge receipt thereof. The assessee denied having made any cash payment and also produced shareholders who denied having received on-money by way of cash over and above cheque payments. Therefore, this addition stem from uncorroborated loose sheet which would not hold much evidentiary value

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 994/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

same was on the basis of a loose sheet found during the course of search. The assessee produced shareholders who denied having received on-money by way of cash over and above cheque payments. The genuineness of the document was also questioned on the ground that Shri M. Mohan ... make payment to himself and acknowledge receipt thereof. The assessee denied having made any cash payment and also produced shareholders who denied having received on-money by way of cash over and above cheque payments. Therefore, this addition stem from uncorroborated loose sheet which would not hold much evidentiary value

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 993/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

same was on the basis of a loose sheet found during the course of search. The assessee produced shareholders who denied having received on-money by way of cash over and above cheque payments. The genuineness of the document was also questioned on the ground that Shri M. Mohan ... make payment to himself and acknowledge receipt thereof. The assessee denied having made any cash payment and also produced shareholders who denied having received on-money by way of cash over and above cheque payments. Therefore, this addition stem from uncorroborated loose sheet which would not hold much evidentiary value

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 992/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

same was on the basis of a loose sheet found during the course of search. The assessee produced shareholders who denied having received on-money by way of cash over and above cheque payments. The genuineness of the document was also questioned on the ground that Shri M. Mohan ... make payment to himself and acknowledge receipt thereof. The assessee denied having made any cash payment and also produced shareholders who denied having received on-money by way of cash over and above cheque payments. Therefore, this addition stem from uncorroborated loose sheet which would not hold much evidentiary value

Shri Brijesh Sukhdev Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1001/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.197&198/Ahd/2013 (A.Ys.: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Uma Shakti Corporation Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Residency Project, Income Tax, A-128, Heritage Bunglows, Central Circle-1(1), Opp. Science City Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380060 [Pan No.Aacfu2135J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. No.196/Ahd/2013 (A.Y.: 2008-09) Vikas R. Patel, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 23, Uma Bungalows, Income Tax, R.C. Technical Road, Central Circle-1(1), B/H. Nirman Tawar, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380061 [Pan No.Accpp4640D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. No.201/Ahd/2013 (A.Y.: 2008-09) Deepak G. Prajapati, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 2, Kunta Park Society, Income Tax, Nava Vadaj, Opp. Ganesh School Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad-380013 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Abcpp4846L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Shakti Corporation Residency Project is recalled for the limited purpose of adjudicating the quantum of income to be subjected to tax on the on-money received by it. The specific finding of the ITAT in Miscellaneous Application is at Para 12 to 14 of the order is reproduced as under ... treated as an income of the assessee which the assessee had disclosed, as opposed to the ITAT estimating the net profit @ 30% of the on-money received. The ld. DR, in his counter to the mistake as pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, has not controverted