← 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

D G Land Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -4(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 408/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 D G Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle-4(4), 104/105 Raghunath Kripa Building, Room No. 1922, 19Th Floor, Aarey Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Air India Building, Mumbai-400063. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaecd 4091 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 D G Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-12(2)(1), Now Dy. 104/105 Raghunath Kripa Building, Cit Central Circle-4(4), Aarey Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Room No. 1922, 19Th Floor, Mumbai-400063. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaecd 4091 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta a/w SaurabhFor Respondent: 31/07/2024
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153C

action of Ld. AO in Rs. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO in Rs. estimating estimating the on-money received for the year under reference money received for the year under reference using extrapolation technique. using extrapolation technique. D G Land Developers ... erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO in assuming the profit element in the on assuming the profit element in the on-money received for new money received for new construction at 36% instead the reasonable profit that construction at 36% instead the reasonable profit that construction

M/S Shivam Resorts, Abohar vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 427/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 427/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Shivam Resorts, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle -1, Malout, Hamunangarh Road, बनाम Ludhiana Bye Pass, Abohar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Accfs7094Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar,Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahus Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri Rahus Sohu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250(6)

case of D.N. Kamani HUF v. Dy. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 Hon'ble ITAT Patna Bench held that documents regarding receipt of on-money by assesses having been 427-Chd-2023 M/s Shivam Resorts, Abohar 15 found in respect of sale of flats to one party, addition could ... 401/Ahd/2014 & 3188/Ahd/2015] vide order 30-6-2019 held as under in context to extrapolation: "Besides, estimated cash receipts on-money of sale of all flats merely on the basis of statement of two purchasers without any tangible corroboration clearly falls in the realm of conjunctures and surmises. It is obvious