← 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

M/S Shakti Oil Mill, Burdwan vs. I.T.O, WD -(1)4, Durgapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2088/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. A.L.Saini, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No2088/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) M/S Shakti Oil Mill, Vs. Ito Ward-1(4), Durgapur Dhunra Plot, Benachity, Durgapur-713213, Dist-Burdwan, W.B "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aazfs 9744 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Roy, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Durgapur, In Appeal No.166/Cit(A)/Dgp/2011-12, Dated 29.04.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 19.12.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Issue Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Through E-Filing On 30.09.2009 Disclosing Total Income At Nil. The Case Was Processed U/S.143(1) On 28.10.2010. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny With The Prior Approval Of Cit, Durgapur. The Ao Completed The Assessment After Making Addition Of Rs.15,04,317/-, On Account Of Difference In Estimated Gross Profit. 3. Aggrieved From The Order Of Ao, The Assessee Filed Appeal Before

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Roy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271A

together because common issues are involved. In these grounds the appellant is disputing the A.O's action in rejecting its book results and estimating its income. The facts of the case are that in course of assessment proceedings the A.O. had called for books of accounts which were not produced ... have done so and in my opinion that action cannot be faulted. Once the book results are rejected there remains the issue of estimation of income. Perusal of the assessment order reveals that the A.O. has adopted a method the logic of which is not being challenged by the appellant

Shri Badal Krishna Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD.-26(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1443/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, DR
Section 144Section 144ASection 44ASection 68

absence of non- maintenance of labour registers and not satisfied the AO with regard to correctness of vouchers and also held that estimation of income at 8% on the basis of section 44AD of the Act is a good indicator which could be a guideline for the purpose of applying

City Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 771/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

also. He submitted that the impugned penalty is not sustainable, since income has been estimated, particularly, when the assessee is not obliged to estimate the income when the stage of completion of project was less. 5. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the provisions of Explanation 5A shall ... income is not normally estimated at this level. Hence there is merit in the contentions of the assessee that he was constrained to estimate the income due to search operations. Since the income from the project has been estimated, in our view, there is merit in the contentions

A.G Homes, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1092/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1092/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 184(5)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned AO in estimation of income from building project @ 10% of notional revenue, ignoring the fact that the construction of building was incomplete and even transaction of sale was not completed

Jayesh K Sampat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 1003/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Choksi – CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri - DR
Section 271(1)(c)

assessee pointed out that the Tribunal has duly noted that the difference between the assessee and the Revenue was primarily on the estimation of income earned from providing of accommodation entries and, therefore, the same would not be exigible for penalty under section ... 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

Jayesh K Sampat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment

ITA 1000/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Choksi – CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri - DR
Section 271(1)(c)

assessee pointed out that the Tribunal has duly noted that the difference between the assessee and the Revenue was primarily on the estimation of income earned from providing of accommodation entries and, therefore, the same would not be exigible for penalty under section ... 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

Essjay Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7110/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7110/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) M/S Essjay Enterprises, The Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ 509, Panchratna Opera Income Tax – Central V. House, Circle – 18 & 19, Mama Parmandand Marg, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafe 0563 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

will not be exigible merely because an addition is made on estimate basis and since there is difference of opinion as regards the estimation of income, it could not be said that the assessee had concealed particulars of income. e) It was submitted that since all the facts were disclosed

Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal u/s 263 stands allowed and appeal bearing no

ITA 22/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, बनधम/ Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Circle-Iii, Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, 3Rd Floor, Quoreshi Mansion, Ambernath -421501 Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane(W)-400602 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) बनधम/ Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1), 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Kalyan. Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, Ambernath -421501 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aevpg3266M अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri A.K Srivastava सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 31.1.2008 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Iii, Thane Under Section 263 Of The Income

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 40a

possible view and thereafter applied flat rate 8% on the gross receipt. The ld. AR submitted that once the flat rate of estimation of income is applied no other disallowance could be made as the same were applied to the turnover of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that ... disputed or doubted the estimation of income which, the AO calculated. The ld. AR also relied upon the following decision in support of his claim: A. Decision of the Honble Punjab & Harayana High Court in the case of C1T v Smt. Santosh [ain (296 ITR 324) ; B. Decision

Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, Ambernath vs. CIT -III, Thane

In the result, the appeal u/s 263 stands allowed and appeal bearing no

ITA 6191/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, बनधम/ Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Circle-Iii, Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, 3Rd Floor, Quoreshi Mansion, Ambernath -421501 Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane(W)-400602 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) बनधम/ Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1), 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Kalyan. Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, Ambernath -421501 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aevpg3266M अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri A.K Srivastava सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 31.1.2008 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Iii, Thane Under Section 263 Of The Income

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 40a

possible view and thereafter applied flat rate 8% on the gross receipt. The ld. AR submitted that once the flat rate of estimation of income is applied no other disallowance could be made as the same were applied to the turnover of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that ... disputed or doubted the estimation of income which, the AO calculated. The ld. AR also relied upon the following decision in support of his claim: A. Decision of the Honble Punjab & Harayana High Court in the case of C1T v Smt. Santosh [ain (296 ITR 324) ; B. Decision

Readymade Steel India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 7426/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Jigna Parekh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Triparthi, D.R
Section 133A

erred in confirming it. 2 M/s. Readymade Steel India P. Ltd. 2. The Ld AO erred in adopting the rate of 3% for estimating the income of the appellant on impugned accommodation turnover without bringing any comparable case on record, as well as rejecting the rate of 1% declared ... 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

Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 46, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 709/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha - DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

assessee pointed out that the Tribunal has duly noted that the difference between the assessee and the Revenue was primarily on the estimation of income earned from providing of accommodation entries and, therefore, the same would not be exigible for penalty under section ... 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 the rate

Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 46, Mumbai

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 698/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha - DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

assessee pointed out that the Tribunal has duly noted that the difference between the assessee and the Revenue was primarily on the estimation of income earned from providing of accommodation entries and, therefore, the same would not be exigible for penalty under section ... 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 the rate

Iljin Electric Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 1023/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234D

respect of offshore supplies would not be taxable in India. Ground no.1, is allowed. 35. In ground no.2, assessee has challenged the estimation of income on presumptive basis on the total revenue earned including off–shore supplies. 36. As is evident on record, the assessee had filed its return ... Learned Authorised Representative has submitted before us that firstly; off–shore supplies cannot be included for estimating the profit and secondly; the estimation of income on presumptive basis @ 10% is not applicable as the provisions of section 44BB and 44BBB are industry specific and cannot be applied to the nature

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Vijay M Vaghani, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s C

ITA 3434/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 3434/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi
Section 133(6)Section 40Section 69CSection 69c

case the Hon.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the total purchases were explained and no addition was required. 3. Without prejudice the estimation of income at 15% of the said purchases is on the higher side.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual

Shine Star Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4350/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

three years, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the rejection of books of account and consequent estimation of income. 3. The facts relating to the issue cited above are stated in brief. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in diamonds ... recorded from Shri Basant Jain, which was originally confirmed by Shri Ramesh L Jain. Accordingly, the assessing officer rejected the book results and estimated the income @ 2% of sales value as stated earlier, even though the commission for accommodation bills was stated as 0.20% for imported diamonds

Shine Star Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4349/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

three years, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the rejection of books of account and consequent estimation of income. 3. The facts relating to the issue cited above are stated in brief. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in diamonds ... recorded from Shri Basant Jain, which was originally confirmed by Shri Ramesh L Jain. Accordingly, the assessing officer rejected the book results and estimated the income @ 2% of sales value as stated earlier, even though the commission for accommodation bills was stated as 0.20% for imported diamonds

Sunshine Import & Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4348/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

three years, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the rejection of books of account and consequent estimation of income. 3. The facts relating to the issue cited above are stated in brief. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in diamonds ... recorded from Shri Basant Jain, which was originally confirmed by Shri Ramesh L Jain. Accordingly, the assessing officer rejected the book results and estimated the income @ 2% of sales value as stated earlier, even though the commission for accommodation bills was stated as 0.20% for imported diamonds

Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC(46), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 7563/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ramlal Negim/S. Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies Private Limited, Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd. 6Th Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 055. Pan:Aadca 9890L ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Cen. Cir.46, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Choksi Respondent By : Shri R.P.Meena Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2016

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri R.P.Meena
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee pointed out that the Tribunal has duly noted that the difference between the assessee and the Revenue was primarily on the estimation of income earned from providing of accommodation entries and, therefore, the same would not be exigible for penalty under section ... 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

Kaycee Shares Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 46, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 7480/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ramlal Negim/S. Kaycee Shares Broking Pvt. Ltd. Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd. 6Th Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 055. Pan:Aacck 7839A ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Cen. Cir.46, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Choksi Respondent By : Shri R.P.Meena Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2016

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri R.P.Meena
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee pointed out that the Tribunal has duly noted that the difference between the assessee and the Revenue was primarily on the estimation of income earned from providing of accommodation entries and, therefore, the same would not be exigible for penalty under section ... 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

Deliben Seth, Mumbai vs. Asst Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5255/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazsmt. Deliben Seth Acit, Central Circle -13 304/B, Pratiksha Tower Old Cgo Building Annex Vs. R.S. Nimkar Marg 11Th Floor, M.K. Road Mumbai 400008 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Afnpj6262P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. ShivramFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Om Ningshen
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

respect of the judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee at S. No. (ii) to (viii), the facts of all these cases relate to estimation of income, in some cases after rejection of books of account, wherein it was held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot ... assessee’s claim of whether expenditure was capital or revenue in nature (cited case at S. No. (1)) or (b) were cases where estimation of income was made and for both of which the Hon'ble courts had held that 6 Smt. Deliben Seth penalty under section