← All Phrases

“estimation of income”

Assessment ProceduresSection 145Section 1453,061 judgments

The decision most relied on for estimation of income is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), cited in 1,465 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on estimation of income

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

When purchases are unproved or presumed to be from the grey market, the entire amount of such purchases should not be disallowed; instead, income can be estimated by applying a reasonable gross profit rate to the unaccounted sales or turnover, especially in assessments arising from search proceedings involving seized documents.

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
314 ITR 62 · 2009 · Supreme Court
739
citing judgments

A provision for expenses, such as warranty, is a deductible liability for income tax purposes if it constitutes a present obligation arising from past events, and a reliable estimate of the amount of obligation is possible.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT
316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court
460
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

Kachwala Gems v. JCIT
288 ITR 10 · 2007 · Supreme Court
332
citing judgments

In a best judgment assessment, some guesswork is inherent, but the estimate must be fair and not arbitrary. Books of account can be rejected under Section 145(3) if the assessee fails to substantiate entries or prove the genuineness of transactions, leading to estimation of income.

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad
72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court
272
citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali
90 ITR 271 · 1973 · Supreme Court
232
citing judgments

The Supreme Court established principles for best judgment assessments, stating that some guesswork is inevitable but the assessment must be bona fide, rational, and free from bias or capriciousness. An appellate authority cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Assessing Officer unless the AO's assessment is shown to be biased, irrational, vindictive, or capricious, especially when the assessee fails to provide proper accounts or counter-evidence.

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.

Harigopal Singh v. CIT
258 ITR 85 · 2002 · High Court
203
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when an addition to income is made on an estimated basis without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted to cases where income is assessed on an estimate basis.

Judgments citing estimation of income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Sunray Green Space Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 274/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.273/Viz/2018 & 274/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-2014 & 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sunray Green Income Tax Space Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 D.No.10-50-40 Visakhapatnam Excelsior Apartments Ramnagar Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaqcs 8494M] (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Cross Objection No.48/Viz/2018 & 49/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.273/Viz/2018 & 274/Viz/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-2014 & 2014-15) M/S Sunray Green Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Space Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.10-50-40 Central Circle-1 Excelsior Apartments, Ramnagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaqcs 8494M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 271A

penalty proceedings, the assessee filed explanation stating that the assessee has disclosed the net income of Rs.12 crores for six assessment years by estimating the income on gross receipts estimated on certain market rate per sq.yd to the investigation team as reasonable. Since the income was declared on estimation basis ... assessee admitted the additional income of Rs. 2.00 crores for the assessment year which was accepted by the department and completed the assessment estimating the income @18% on gross contract receipts before depreciation. The AO has initiated the penalty u/s 271AAB and 271F of the Act. Subsequently, the AO completed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Sunray Green Space Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 273/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.273/Viz/2018 & 274/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-2014 & 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sunray Green Income Tax Space Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 D.No.10-50-40 Visakhapatnam Excelsior Apartments Ramnagar Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaqcs 8494M] (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Cross Objection No.48/Viz/2018 & 49/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.273/Viz/2018 & 274/Viz/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-2014 & 2014-15) M/S Sunray Green Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Space Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.10-50-40 Central Circle-1 Excelsior Apartments, Ramnagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaqcs 8494M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 271A

penalty proceedings, the assessee filed explanation stating that the assessee has disclosed the net income of Rs.12 crores for six assessment years by estimating the income on gross receipts estimated on certain market rate per sq.yd to the investigation team as reasonable. Since the income was declared on estimation basis ... assessee admitted the additional income of Rs. 2.00 crores for the assessment year which was accepted by the department and completed the assessment estimating the income @18% on gross contract receipts before depreciation. The AO has initiated the penalty u/s 271AAB and 271F of the Act. Subsequently, the AO completed

Sumanta Kumar Das, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 36/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.36/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Sumanta Kumar Das, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(2), Plot No.-Lb-118, Stage-Iv, Bhubaneswar Budheswari, Laxmisagar, Bhubaneswar-751006 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Adypd 8979 L (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 27.10.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. As Per The Office Note, There Is A Delay Of Three Years Three Months & Five Days In Filing The Appeal Of Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Prolonged Illness & Negligence Of The Previous Counsel, He Could Not File The Appeal In Time. On The Other Hand, Ld. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. We Have Also Gone Through The Said Application Along With The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Explaining

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

should not have been deducted from Rs.5,34,92,958/- for the purpose of estimation . Therefore the estimation of income on the entire 4 bank deposits amount to double taxation. Therefore the income assessed is illegal and liable to be reduced accordingly. 4. For that the assessee craves for addition ... disclosed the income of Rs.1,47,51,785/-, therefore, the AO has wrongly deducted from Rs.5,34,92,958/- for the purpose of estimation of income on the entire bank deposits, which amounts to double taxation. Ld. AR further submitted that there is no basis on which