← 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

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Shri Yogendraraj U. Singhvi, Surat

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

ITA 79/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2926/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Yogendraraj U Singhvi, V. Income Tax Officer, Office No. 103, Ist Floor, H. No. 6/1946-B, Ward- 2(3)(8), Dalagia Street, Mahidharpura Surat Aayakar Bhavan Surat [Pan: Anjps 9745 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.79/Ahd/2017: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, V. Shri Yogendraraj U Singhvi, Ward- 2(3)(8), Office No. 103, Ist Floor, H. No. 6/1946- Aayakar Bhavan Surat B, Dalagia Street, Mahidharpura Surat [Pan: Anjps 9745 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.A. िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri S.R. Meena, Sr. D.R. राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By 24.07.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 25.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143Section 147

Page 21 of 24 Yogendraraj U Singhvi v. ITO 2(3)(8)/I.T.A. No.2926/AHD/2016/A.Y.07-08 & I.T.A.No. 79/Ahd/2017 /AY07-08 CIT (A) for estimation of income @5% of purchases and submitted that the contention of the assessee that no information was supplied but the assessment was reopen on the basis of information received

Shri Yogendraraj U.Singhvi, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

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

ITA 2926/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2926/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Yogendraraj U Singhvi, V. Income Tax Officer, Office No. 103, Ist Floor, H. No. 6/1946-B, Ward- 2(3)(8), Dalagia Street, Mahidharpura Surat Aayakar Bhavan Surat [Pan: Anjps 9745 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.79/Ahd/2017: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, V. Shri Yogendraraj U Singhvi, Ward- 2(3)(8), Office No. 103, Ist Floor, H. No. 6/1946- Aayakar Bhavan Surat B, Dalagia Street, Mahidharpura Surat [Pan: Anjps 9745 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.A. िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri S.R. Meena, Sr. D.R. राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By 24.07.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 25.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143Section 147

Page 21 of 24 Yogendraraj U Singhvi v. ITO 2(3)(8)/I.T.A. No.2926/AHD/2016/A.Y.07-08 & I.T.A.No. 79/Ahd/2017 /AY07-08 CIT (A) for estimation of income @5% of purchases and submitted that the contention of the assessee that no information was supplied but the assessment was reopen on the basis of information received

Mallaiah Rajender Kumar Kalvakunta, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 358/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamanysri Mallaiah Rajender Income Tax Officer Kumar Kalvakunta Vs Ward 1 Prop. Diwakar Wines Siddipet Flat No.201 Sai Krishna Residency New Bus Stand Sanga Reddy 502 001 Pan:Amrpk8302Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Smt.A.Sandhya, A.R. For Revenue : Smt. K.Komali Krishna, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-7, Hyderabad, Dated 21.12.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Is Carrying On Retail Business In Liquor. He Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2014-15 On 11.10.2014 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.11,02,350/- . During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Pursuant To Selection Of Return Under Cass, Notices For Hearing Were Issued To The Assessee. However, None Appeared For The Assessee. Therefore, The

For Appellant: Smt.A.Sandhya, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. K.Komali Krishna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 234B

order of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the income at 5% of the cost of goods. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.35,800/- made by the AO representing ... rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has not maintained any books of account and therefore, the estimation of income is justified. It is only the rate at which the income is to be estimated is before us. A.O. has estimated the income