← 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

A. Jothimani, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2176/CHNY/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the search took place on 10.11.2005. The estimation of income is for the assessment year 2005-06. The time limit for filing the return of income expired on 30.07.2005. From the order

A. Jothimani, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2175/CHNY/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the search took place on 10.11.2005. The estimation of income is for the assessment year 2005-06. The time limit for filing the return of income expired on 30.07.2005. From the order

A. Jothimani, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2174/CHNY/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the search took place on 10.11.2005. The estimation of income is for the assessment year 2005-06. The time limit for filing the return of income expired on 30.07.2005. From the order

Shri Anburaj Exports, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2173/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the search took place on 10.11.2005. The estimation of income is for the assessment year 2005-06. The time limit for filing the return of income expired on 30.07.2005. From the order

Shri Anburaj Exports, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2172/CHNY/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the search took place on 10.11.2005. The estimation of income is for the assessment year 2005-06. The time limit for filing the return of income expired on 30.07.2005. From the order

Mihir Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

ITA 7534/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7534/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7536/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7537/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd. 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aabch 7898 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Choksi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:06/01/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 31/10/2014 Of The Cit(A)-38,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Three Ay.S.The Only Issue In All The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act.As The Appeals Deal With The Same Issue,Therefore,For Sake Of Convenience Same Are Being Decided By A Single Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Choksi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-DR
Section 132Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

found group concerns were engaged in providing accommodation bills/hawala entries, that the assessee did not dispute the said fact,that the AO estimated the income from the accommodation entries @ 2% of the total transactions appearing in the bank accounts of the assessee,that the then FAA confirmed the quantum addition ... separate and distinct proceedings and the quantum proceedings should not result in automatic levy of concealment penalty. It is a case of estimation of income by the AO and the assessee. Here we would like to discuss two cases.One of them is Aero Traders