← 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

Prabha Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 46, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4320/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am M/S. Prabha Multitrade Pvt. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Central Circle – 46, Ltd., 6Th Road Mumbai Santacruz (E) Mumbai – 400 055 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0813N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mukesh Chokshi Revenue By Shri Akthar H Ansari Date Of Hearing 06/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per: R.C. Sharma, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)—22, Mumbai In Appeal No. Cit(A)-22/It/242/2014-15 Dated 05/04/2018 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Revolves Around Addition Of 2% Commission Of Alleged Receipt As Per The Bank Statement. 3. I Have Considered Rival Contentions & Found That Ao Has Estimated Income At 0.15% On Total Receipt Of Rs.8,40,75,293/-. It Was Contention Of Assessee Before The Ao & Cit(A) That Receipt Was Only To The Tune Of Rs.4,70,70,093/-. Even Before Me, There Was Contention Of Ld. Ar That Rs.8,40,75,293/- Has Been Wrongly Estimated By The Ao. I

Section 143(3)Section 271

regard. Therefore, in view of these facts, this ground is dismissed. 6.6 In ground nos. 4 & 5 the appellant challenges the A.O's estimation of income at the rate of 2% on entire bank deposits without perusing the bank statement and without reducing the amount of fund transferred to sister ... during the appellate proceeding in this regard contains the following propositions:- i) Since the Hon'ble ITAT had already decided the issue of estimation of income @ 0.15% of the total turnover Our prayer is to treat the appeal in the same manner. ii) That 0.15% should be the rate