← 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

Dlh Kamla Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC- 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 1373/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit Cen. Cir. -3(4), Dlh Kamla Developers 19Th Floor, Air India Ground Floor, Shanti बनाम/ Vimal, P. M. Road, Vile Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Parle East, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 057 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aahfd0790K (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 22.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)/153A For Ay 2013-14 & Section 143(3) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

oath recorded 5 I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 DLH Kamla Developers u/s 131, Shri Jitendra Jain explained that the unaccounted funds generated on account of "on-money receipts" have been introduced in the hands of the entities of Assessee Group in the guise of accommodation entries of unsecured loans /advances ... 1374/Mum/2019 DLH Kamla Developers 6. Thereafter, AO has summarized the modus operandi and chronology arrangement of transactions in the following manner:- 1. Receipt of 'On-Money' from the customers on sale of flats/ shops; 2. The On-Money received in Cash is utilized for either Cash Purchases or routed back

Asha Krishnarao Bhoge, Aurangabad vs. ITO WD 1(1), Thane

In the result, the assessee appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1659/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleasha Krishnarao Bhoge Vs. Ito, Ward – 1(1) Plot No.-D7, Khivasara 6Th Floor, B Wing, Nilgiris, Khivsara Park, Ashar It Park, Wagle Ulkanagari, Industrial Estate, Aurangabad Road No. 16Z, Thane Maharashtra.-431009 Maharashtra-400604 Pan/Gir No. : Argpb3366F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Veena.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

conducted at Hiranandani Group, Builders & Developers by DIT (Inv) Mumbai and in the course of search certain evidences found with respect to payment of on-money by various flat purchases, whereas on the basis of the material information, the assessee has paid on-money ... submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the various information filed and further the assessee has not paid any on-money to the builder and the transaction was cancelled and prayed for allowing the appeal. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A). Asha