← 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

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1159/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

keeping in view factual matrix of the case , the profit embedded in these purchases are required to be brought to tax which requires estimation of income as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems v. JCIT reported in (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC). We would

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1158/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

keeping in view factual matrix of the case , the profit embedded in these purchases are required to be brought to tax which requires estimation of income as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems v. JCIT reported in (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC). We would

Badisa Hanumantha Rao, Guntur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 507/VIZ/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.507/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year : 2015-16) Badisa Hanumantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Mig No.1-223 Ward-1(1) Nallapadu Road Guntur Guntur [Pan :Arhpb4733B] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2019 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29 .05.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per D.S. Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1, Guntur Vide Appeal No.24/2017-18 Dated 26.12.2017 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 56

Rs.22,00,836/- u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). In the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) estimated the income @5% on net purchases put to sale and also made the addition of Rs.7,42,500/- as income from other sources ... that the assessee is in the business of IMFL and for the A.Y. 2015-16, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) by estimation of income and the AO has also made the addition relating to the chit contribution from April to December 2016. The assessee has commenced the business

Madhurawada Sree Sampath Educational Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 367/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.367/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S Madhurawada Sree Sampath Vs. Income Tax Officer Educational Society Ward-1(1) D.No.26-15-149 Visakhapatnam Beside Andhra Bank Main Road Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaeam0753H] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29 .05.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per D.S. Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-10, Hyderabad Vide

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, DR
Section 10

case, we are of the view that since, the assessee failed to produce any evidence to support the expenses, the reasonable estimation of income would meet the ends of justice. On similar facts in the case of Vidyodaya Educational Society, this Tribunal held that the estimation of income ... there was no proper evidence. During the appeal hearing, for a query from the bench, the Ld. A.R. expressed no objection for estimation of income @ 20% of the gross receipts. We have gone through the submissions of the assessee as well as orders of the lower authorities and the arguments

Shri Paresh Jashwant Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-16(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7014/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhshri Paresh Jashwant Shah, Acit Circle-16 (3), Shah & Sanghvi, Solicitors Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 114-A, Mittal Court, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aahps6149M Appellant Respondent Shri Paresh Jashwant Shah, Ito-16 (3)(2), Shah & Sanghvi, Solicitors Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 114-A, Mittal Court, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aahps6149M Appellant Respondent : Shri Jitendra Jain (Ar) Appellant By Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesheri (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Two Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act

For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition to the extent of Rs.9,33,670 to the total income of the appellant by estimating agricultural income at Rs.40,000 per acre per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a practicing Advocate in Bombay High Court ... relief of Rs. 10,00,000/- and remaining amount was confirmed. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that ld. CIT(A) made estimation of income. However, the same income was accepted in the return of income by mother of assessee. The ld. AR further submits that in earlier years

Raman Trikha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 5413/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5413/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Raman Trikha बिधम/ Ito 16 (1)(5) 403A, Adelphi Co-Op. Hsg. Room No. 439, Aaykar Vs. Bhavan, 4Th Floor, M.K. Soc., Building No. 10, Shastri Nagar, Andheri West Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- (Mumbai)-400053. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt7266L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu Revenue By: Shri R. Sindhu (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Shri R. Sindhu (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

rate of 1% of the turnover. But the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings directed the AO to estimate the income of commission from hawala transactions at the rate of 0.4% of gross turnover. The Tribunal, however, directed the AO to estimate the income at the rate ... administrative expenses there from. The Ld. A.R. has stated that in the case of the assessee no expenditure has been claimed. Even the estimation of income at the rate of 1% of the accommodation bills turnover has also been approved by the Tribunal. Considering the above submissions of the assessee