← 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, Guntur vs. Bolisetty Kameswara Rao, Guntur

Appeals are dismissed and the two Cross Objections of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 186/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 185 & 186/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Bolisetty Kameswara Rao, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, D.No.3-29-40/4, 2Nd Lane, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Krishna Nagar, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur-522006. Guntur-522 007. Pan: Achpb 2189 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 18 & 19/Viz/2022 आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 185 & 186/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Bolisetty Kameswara Rao, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, D.No.3-29-40/4, 2Nd Lane, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Krishna Nagar, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur-522006. Guntur-522 007. Pan: Achpb 2189 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant In Appeal) (""यथ"/ Respondent / Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Shri P. Koteswara Rao, in ITA No. 251 & 252/Viz/2022. On similar facts, ITAT held that it is not correct in coming to conclusion that on-money was exchanged between the parties on the basis of material found in the premises of third party and on the statement given by third ... parties. In the instant case, both the parties, search party as well as the assessee have denied having exchanged the on-money for sale of land. Even after the assessee’s case is covered under search operations u/s. 132, the department did not unearth any evidence regarding exchange of cash

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Bolisetty Kameswara Rao, Guntur

Appeals are dismissed and the two Cross Objections of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 185/VIZ/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 185 & 186/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Bolisetty Kameswara Rao, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, D.No.3-29-40/4, 2Nd Lane, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Krishna Nagar, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur-522006. Guntur-522 007. Pan: Achpb 2189 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 18 & 19/Viz/2022 आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 185 & 186/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Bolisetty Kameswara Rao, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, D.No.3-29-40/4, 2Nd Lane, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Krishna Nagar, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur-522006. Guntur-522 007. Pan: Achpb 2189 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant In Appeal) (""यथ"/ Respondent / Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Shri P. Koteswara Rao, in ITA No. 251 & 252/Viz/2022. On similar facts, ITAT held that it is not correct in coming to conclusion that on-money was exchanged between the parties on the basis of material found in the premises of third party and on the statement given by third ... parties. In the instant case, both the parties, search party as well as the assessee have denied having exchanged the on-money for sale of land. Even after the assessee’s case is covered under search operations u/s. 132, the department did not unearth any evidence regarding exchange of cash

Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/RJT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 103 To 105/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Patel Ward 3(2), Jamnagar Vs. Plot No.3990, Gidc, Phase-Iii, Dared, Jamnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp6152H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 01/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: This Bunch Of Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.07.2021 (For A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12) & 27.07.2021 (For A.Y. 2010-11) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

Shri Mukeshkumar Vrajlal Akbari 9 but no evidence could be brought on record by Revenue to show that in fact assessee had paid 'on-money' to developers, and no document containing signature of assessee or handwriting of assessee to corroborate above making of payment by assessee was found during course

Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/RJT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 103 To 105/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Patel Ward 3(2), Jamnagar Vs. Plot No.3990, Gidc, Phase-Iii, Dared, Jamnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp6152H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 01/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: This Bunch Of Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.07.2021 (For A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12) & 27.07.2021 (For A.Y. 2010-11) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

Shri Mukeshkumar Vrajlal Akbari 9 but no evidence could be brought on record by Revenue to show that in fact assessee had paid 'on-money' to developers, and no document containing signature of assessee or handwriting of assessee to corroborate above making of payment by assessee was found during course

Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 103/RJT/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 103 To 105/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Patel Ward 3(2), Jamnagar Vs. Plot No.3990, Gidc, Phase-Iii, Dared, Jamnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp6152H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 01/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: This Bunch Of Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.07.2021 (For A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12) & 27.07.2021 (For A.Y. 2010-11) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

Shri Mukeshkumar Vrajlal Akbari 9 but no evidence could be brought on record by Revenue to show that in fact assessee had paid 'on-money' to developers, and no document containing signature of assessee or handwriting of assessee to corroborate above making of payment by assessee was found during course