← 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

Bharat Laxman Bhiwapurkar, Thane vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Thane

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

ITA 3413/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhbharat Laxman Vs. Ito, Ward 1(5), Bhiwapurkar, 204, Room No. 14, B Wing, Oxford, Regency Heights, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Azad Nagar, Kolshet, Road No. 16Z, Wagle, Thane - 400602 Ind. Estate, Thane-400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abnpb8487A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Subodh Ratnaparkhi Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 26.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 03.08.2023 For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Hon. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding Re-Opening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Inspite Of The Fact That There Was No Incriminating Material Pertaining To The Appellant With Regards To Alleged On-Money Paid For Purchase Of Flat From Cosmos Group & Therefore The Re-Opening Was In Absence Of Any Independent & Valid Belief On The Part Of The Id Ao That Any Income Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment. The Re-Opening Of Assessment U/S 147 Being Bad-In-Law, The Asst. Order Flowing Therefrom, Being The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Is Also Invalid & Bad In Law & Hence The Same May Be Quashed 2. The Hon Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 31,00,000/-, U/S 69 Of The 1.1 Act, 1961, As Unexplained Investment Towards Alleged On- Money Paid Towards Purchase Of Flat No. A-07, 7Th Floor, Twilight, Cosmos Horizon, Ghodbunder Road, Thane (W) To Cosmos Group, Ignoring The Contentions Of The Appellant That There Was No Incriminating

For Appellant: Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Income Tax Act 1961, inspite of the fact that there was no incriminating material pertaining to the appellant with regards to alleged on-money paid for purchase of flat from Cosmos Group and therefore the re-opening was in absence of any independent and valid belief on the part ... material pertaining to the appellant with regards to such alleged on- money paid and that as he had not paid any such alleged on-money for purchase of flat, the addition Rs.31,00,000/- was not justified by facts and in law and hence may please be deleted

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Hill Max Export, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 742/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 742/Chny/2023 & Co No.: 39/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Hill Max Export, Tax, V. No. 149/1, Central Circle 2(1), Pollachi Main Road, Room No. B3, Ground Floor, Kattampatti, Investigation Building, Jakkarpalayam-Vaipollachi, Chennai – 34. Coimbatore – 642 202. [Pan:Aahfh-2574-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, Cit Respondent/Cross Objector By : Shri. M. V. Prasad, Fca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.12.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 69B

consideration as per the sale agreement dated 01.04.2015 was Rs.7,45,00,000/-. Hence, the balance consideration of Rs.5,34,00,000/- is the on-money paid by M/s.Hill Max Exports in FY:2015-16, that is AY:2016-17. 6.2 As no sources have been established for the additional ... 153C of the Act. The assessee had also :-7-: ITA. No: 742/Chny/2023 & CO No: 39/Chny/2023 contested additions made by the Assessing Officer towards purported on-money payments for purchase of property u/s. 69B of the Act. The assessee has filed a detailed written submissions on the issue, which has been

The Jt. CIT, (OSD), Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue , so far as Ground no

ITA 523/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Jt.Cit (Osd) Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4(1)(1) V. 25, 4Th Floor Ahmedabad Shukan Mall Nr.Rajasthan Hospital Shahibaug, Ahmedabad-380054 Gujarat Pan: Aaics 9312 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Ramit Kocharthis Appeal Filed By Revenue Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 22/01/2019 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of Sub-Section (6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2012-13(Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/168/15-16), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld. Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated Jt.Cit(Osd) V. Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Ay 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate and Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 40A(3)

assessee-company at 25, 4th Floor, Shukan Mall, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad. Page Nos.55 to 59 of Annexure A-6 consist of the details of on-money received on sale of Bungalows of Vedika Exotica Project and the said pages also consist certain details of various expenses made in cash ... Jt.CIT(OSD) v. Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 5 scheme. The ld. CIT(A) observed that it was paid by way of on-money to purchase of plot for V-69 will go to increase the work in progress to the closing stock of project constructed