← 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

Bbg Construction, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 33(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 500/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 500/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bbg Construction.............................……………………………………………………….Appellant 2/1, Ballav Street, Shyambazar, Kolkata – 700 004. [Pan : Aadfb 4960 D] Ito Ward 33(2) Kolkata...................………………………………………………..Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sourav Kumar, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 24, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 05, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 19.01.2018 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein As Pressed By The Learned Counsel For The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing Before The Tribunal Relates To The Addition Made By The A.O. By Considering The Interest Income Of Rs. 5,46,890/- Separately & Not As The Part Of Total Turnover While Computing The Income Of The Assessee On Estimated Basis By Applying A Net Profit Rate.

Section 144

other record maintained by the 2 I.T.A. No. 500/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 BBG Construction assessee. Accordingly, he rejected the books of account and estimated the income of the assessee from contracting business by applying a net profit of 8% on the total contract receipts ... both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the proposed estimation of income by the A.O. by applying a net profit rate of 8% was accepted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings

Gudla Eswara Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. The ITO, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 260/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Gudla Eswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.49-11-27/15 Ward-1(3) Lalitha Nagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Ajupg4697G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.V.Subba Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

declared by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and computation of gross receipts at Rs.2,13,21,000/-by the Ld.CIT(A) and estimation of income on the said gross receipts @ 12% by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee is engaged in the business of construction of apartments and filed ... No.260/Viz/2017 Gudla Eswara Rao, Visakhapatnam that the admission was due to pressure of the AO. The assessee prayed before the Ld.CIT(A) to estimate the income on additional receipts of Rs.50,44,750/- instead of making the entire sum as addition. The Ld.CIT(A) considered arguments of the Ld.AR