← 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 DCIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S Sri Sai Lakshmi Constructions & Co, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 262/VIZ/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअऩीऱसं./I.T.A.No.262/Viz/2015 (ननधधारणवषा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Dy.Commissionerof Income-Tax Vs. M/S Sri Sai Lakshmi Circle-2(1) Constructions & Co., Vijayawada D.No.59-7-11/2, Sri Sainilayam Acharyaranga Street Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada [Pan :Aaofs7183E] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.14/Viz/2017 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.262/Viz/2015 (ननधधारणवषा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs. Dy.Commissionerof M/S Sri Sai Lakshmi Constructions & Co., Income-Tax D.No.59-7-11/2, Circle-2(1) Sri Sainilayam Vijayawada Acharyaranga Street Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada [Pan :Aaofs7183E] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriD.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: ShriG.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 40

assessee filed miscellaneous applications for the A.Y.2008-09 in ITA No.262. In the order passed by the ITAT, the ITAT has confirmed the estimation of income and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to estimate the income @10% on main contracts and 7% on sub contracts, net of all expenditure including depreciation

Mudunuri Subba Raju, Bhimavaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 575/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.421-423/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) . Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi Vs Income Tax Officer D.No.27-17-63 Ward-2 Asr Nagar Bhimavaram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan :Bdupm6273P] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.573-575/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Vs. Income Tax Officer F.No.100, R R Enclave Ward-2 Opp.Aditya Public School Bhimavaram Suryanarayanapuram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Adlpm6979Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 148

Mudunuri Sridevi which are common to all the appeals. 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition of Rs.9 lakhs estimating the income @ Rs.30,000/- per acre from fish ponds. A survey u/s 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee and the Assessing Officer ... requested the assessees to produce the books of accounts. Since the assessees failed to produce the books of accounts, the AO estimated the income @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. Accordingly made the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in each case. As per the assessments completed by the AO, the returned income

Mudunuri Subba Raju, Bhimavaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 574/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.421-423/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) . Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi Vs Income Tax Officer D.No.27-17-63 Ward-2 Asr Nagar Bhimavaram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan :Bdupm6273P] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.573-575/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Vs. Income Tax Officer F.No.100, R R Enclave Ward-2 Opp.Aditya Public School Bhimavaram Suryanarayanapuram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Adlpm6979Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 148

Mudunuri Sridevi which are common to all the appeals. 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition of Rs.9 lakhs estimating the income @ Rs.30,000/- per acre from fish ponds. A survey u/s 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee and the Assessing Officer ... requested the assessees to produce the books of accounts. Since the assessees failed to produce the books of accounts, the AO estimated the income @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. Accordingly made the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in each case. As per the assessments completed by the AO, the returned income

Mudunuri Subba Raju, Bhimavaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 573/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.421-423/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) . Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi Vs Income Tax Officer D.No.27-17-63 Ward-2 Asr Nagar Bhimavaram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan :Bdupm6273P] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.573-575/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Vs. Income Tax Officer F.No.100, R R Enclave Ward-2 Opp.Aditya Public School Bhimavaram Suryanarayanapuram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Adlpm6979Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 148

Mudunuri Sridevi which are common to all the appeals. 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition of Rs.9 lakhs estimating the income @ Rs.30,000/- per acre from fish ponds. A survey u/s 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee and the Assessing Officer ... requested the assessees to produce the books of accounts. Since the assessees failed to produce the books of accounts, the AO estimated the income @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. Accordingly made the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in each case. As per the assessments completed by the AO, the returned income

Mudunuri Sridevi, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 423/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.421-423/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) . Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi Vs Income Tax Officer D.No.27-17-63 Ward-2 Asr Nagar Bhimavaram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan :Bdupm6273P] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.573-575/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Vs. Income Tax Officer F.No.100, R R Enclave Ward-2 Opp.Aditya Public School Bhimavaram Suryanarayanapuram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Adlpm6979Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 148

Mudunuri Sridevi which are common to all the appeals. 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition of Rs.9 lakhs estimating the income @ Rs.30,000/- per acre from fish ponds. A survey u/s 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee and the Assessing Officer ... requested the assessees to produce the books of accounts. Since the assessees failed to produce the books of accounts, the AO estimated the income @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. Accordingly made the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in each case. As per the assessments completed by the AO, the returned income

Mudunuri Sridevi, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 422/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.421-423/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) . Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi Vs Income Tax Officer D.No.27-17-63 Ward-2 Asr Nagar Bhimavaram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan :Bdupm6273P] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.573-575/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Vs. Income Tax Officer F.No.100, R R Enclave Ward-2 Opp.Aditya Public School Bhimavaram Suryanarayanapuram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Adlpm6979Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 148

Mudunuri Sridevi which are common to all the appeals. 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition of Rs.9 lakhs estimating the income @ Rs.30,000/- per acre from fish ponds. A survey u/s 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee and the Assessing Officer ... requested the assessees to produce the books of accounts. Since the assessees failed to produce the books of accounts, the AO estimated the income @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. Accordingly made the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in each case. As per the assessments completed by the AO, the returned income

Shantilal B. Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4262/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Ito-3(4), Flat No. 24, 6Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Gaurav Apt. , Murbad Road, V. Sarvoday Nagar, Kalyan(W)- 421301 Nahur Village Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Akcpp9255C Assessee By: Mr. Divendra H. Jain Revenue By : Shri. S.K Jain सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Are Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively , Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 29.03.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. 222 & 223/15-16, For Assessment Year’S 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 19.01.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. Since Both These Appeals Raises Similar Issues & Common Grounds

For Appellant: Mr. Divendra H. JainFor Respondent: Shri. S.K Jain
Section 144Section 148Section 44A

addition to and over & above income declared by the assessee will meet end of justice and will be an fair and honest estimation of income. Thus, we confirm additions to the tune of 12.5% of these purchases as an addition to income over and above what is declared

Shantilal B Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4261/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Ito-3(4), Flat No. 24, 6Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Gaurav Apt. , Murbad Road, V. Sarvoday Nagar, Kalyan(W)- 421301 Nahur Village Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Akcpp9255C Assessee By: Mr. Divendra H. Jain Revenue By : Shri. S.K Jain सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Are Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively , Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 29.03.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. 222 & 223/15-16, For Assessment Year’S 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 19.01.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. Since Both These Appeals Raises Similar Issues & Common Grounds

For Appellant: Mr. Divendra H. JainFor Respondent: Shri. S.K Jain
Section 144Section 148Section 44A

addition to and over & above income declared by the assessee will meet end of justice and will be an fair and honest estimation of income. Thus, we confirm additions to the tune of 12.5% of these purchases as an addition to income over and above what is declared

ITO, Visakhapatnam vs. Pusrla Subash, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 486/VIZ/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S.Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR /
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

declaring total income of Rs.1,68,531/-. For the assessment years under consideration the assessee has not maintained the books of accounts and estimated the income @8% on gross receipts. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in this case in the business premises of Sri Pusarla Subhash ... Gokul Grandeur (Sita Residency) Deepika 6 9089550 983999 5231080 Total 42953287 1917736 654671 0 7536156 2.3. The AO proposed to estimate the income on gross receipts and to make the addition of unaccounted payments separately and given an opportunity to the assessee to explain as to why the income should

ITO, Visakhapatnam vs. Pusrla Subash, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 485/VIZ/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S.Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR /
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

declaring total income of Rs.1,68,531/-. For the assessment years under consideration the assessee has not maintained the books of accounts and estimated the income @8% on gross receipts. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in this case in the business premises of Sri Pusarla Subhash ... Gokul Grandeur (Sita Residency) Deepika 6 9089550 983999 5231080 Total 42953287 1917736 654671 0 7536156 2.3. The AO proposed to estimate the income on gross receipts and to make the addition of unaccounted payments separately and given an opportunity to the assessee to explain as to why the income should

ITO, Visakhapatnam vs. Pusarla Subash, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 484/VIZ/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.472 & 473/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 & 2010-11) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Range-1 Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.474 & 475/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2011-2012 & 2012-13) Pusarla Subhash Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Income Tax Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar Circle-1(1) Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.481-486/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ A.Ys: 2007-2008 To 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. Pusarla Subhash Ward-1(4) Prop.Sagar Durga Developers Visakhapatnam Door No.15-13-6, Krishnanagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aigpp2446K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr / Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2019 25.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S.Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR /
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

declaring total income of Rs.1,68,531/-. For the assessment years under consideration the assessee has not maintained the books of accounts and estimated the income @8% on gross receipts. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in this case in the business premises of Sri Pusarla Subhash ... Gokul Grandeur (Sita Residency) Deepika 6 9089550 983999 5231080 Total 42953287 1917736 654671 0 7536156 2.3. The AO proposed to estimate the income on gross receipts and to make the addition of unaccounted payments separately and given an opportunity to the assessee to explain as to why the income should