← 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

Laxmi Ventrues (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5412/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5412/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-05) M/S Laxmi Ventures (India) बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Pvt.Ltd., Tax- Range 6(3), Vs. 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge, Mumbai. Arcade, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./Pan No. :Aaacl1082G अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant By: Shri Haridas Bhat प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By Shri Saurabh Deshpande सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.8.2017 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.9.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, Mumbai Dated 22.9.2015 Pertaining To A.Y.2004-05. 2. The Assessment, In This Case Was Completed U/S 143(3) On 28.11.2006 At An Income Of Rs.4,67,13,230/-Against The Returned Income Of Rs.26,64,360/- Filed By The Assessee By Making Various Additions Inter-Alia On Account Of Estimation Of Income Of Bhilai Plant & Tedessara Unit Amounting To Rs.10,00,000/- & Disallowance Of Rs.3,50,000/- On Account Of Depreciation In Respect Of Freehold Land. In The Quantum Proceedings The Ld. Cit(A) Directed The Ao To Restrict The Income At 5% Of Sales Of The Said Two Units Beside Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3,00,893/-. In The Further Appeal Before The Itat, The Disallowance Of Depreciation Was Confirmed. Accordingly, The Ao Issued Show Cause Notice To The Assessee U/S 271(1)(C) On 4.1.2010 For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Finally The Penalty Of Rs.2,27,813/- Was Levied Of The 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded By An Order Dated 23.3.2010 Passed Under Section 271(1)( C ) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

against the returned income of Rs.26,64,360/- filed by the assessee by making various additions inter-alia on account of estimation of income of Bhilai Plant and Tedessara Unit amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- and disallowance of Rs.3,50,000/- on account of depreciation in respect of freehold land ... worked out to Rs.3,00,893/- and depreciation for Rs.3,50,000/- towards free hold land. In respect of first items of estimation of income, we are of the view that no penalty can be levied in the case of estimation of income as it is purely guesswork and therefore