← 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

Motta Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 15 & 16, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2856/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2856 & 2857/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Motta Construction Pvt. Ltd. Acit, 1, Prabodh Building, Central Circle-15 & 16, बनाम/ 221, Deodhar Road, Mumbai Vs. Matunga, Mumbai-19 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm 3577 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Paresh Shaparia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vinita Menon

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Vinita Menon
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

brought to tax cannot be discredited. Even the Hon'ble ITAT has supported this view of the Assessing Officer, since on principle, the estimation of income has been sustained, (A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07) Motta Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT only according marginal relief to the assessee. The conduct ... receipts as the assessee is engaged in the business of the construction activity, i.e., the Civil Contractor. Even the Tribunal has accepted the estimation of income and reduced the profit rate from 25% to 23%. The observations of Tribunal in quantum appeal is reproduced in above para 5 of this

ACIT, Circle - 56, Kolkata vs. The West Bengal State Co-Opt. Bank Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals as well as the cross-objections are dismissed

ITA 737/KOL/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.Anos.737-742/Kol/2011 Assessment Years : 1996-97 To 2001-02 A.C.I.T., Circle-56, -Vs.- The West Bengal State Co-Operative Kolkata Bank Ltd.Kolkata [Pan : Aaaat 7072 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) C.O.Nos.36-40/Kol/2011 (A/O I.T.A Nos. 737-741/Kol/2011 ) Assessment Years : 1996-97 To 2000-2001 The West Bengal State Co-Operative -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-56, Bank Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaat 7072 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) For The Assessee : Shri N.C.Mondal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2016. Order Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri N.C.Mondal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

interest income from non-members and nominal members, and, that on non-SLR investment. 14 - I have considered the submissions regarding estimation of income made by the AO and also perused the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant. The AO has mentioned in the assessment order that there ... does not possess absolute arbitrary authority to assess any figure he likes. Even if the circumstances of the case called for resorting to estimating the income of the appellant, such estimation cannot be a wild one, but, should be made honestly and not arbitrarily; moreover, it should have a reasonable

Mukesh Choksi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC (46), Mumbai

ITA 996/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadवष" /Assessment Years: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/695/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aagfm 0809 D आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/996/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mr. Mukesh Choksi Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaapc 7767 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Choksi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19& 20.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 क" धारा ( 1 ) 254 केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" क" धारा धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 14/11/2014 Of The Cit (A)-38,Mumbai The Above- Mentioned Assessees Have Filed Appeals For The Ay.S2004-05And 2005-06 Respecti - Vely.The Only Issue In Both The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.As Both The Assessees Are From The Same Group,Therefore,For Sake Of Convenience We Are Deciding The Appeals By Passing A Single Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 132Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

stated that the Tribunal had held that commission income should be taken at the rate of 0.15%, that it was a case of estimation of income, that assessee had not concealed particulars of income or had filed inaccurate particulars of income. The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order ... 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

Mihir Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 46, Mumbai

ITA 695/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadवष" /Assessment Years: 2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/695/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aagfm 0809 D आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/996/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mr. Mukesh Choksi Dcit-Cc-46 Room No.659, 6Th Floor Block H, Shri Sadashiv Chs Ltd., 6Th Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 055. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaapc 7767 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Choksi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19& 20.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 क" धारा ( 1 ) 254 केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" क" धारा धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 14/11/2014 Of The Cit (A)-38,Mumbai The Above- Mentioned Assessees Have Filed Appeals For The Ay.S2004-05And 2005-06 Respecti - Vely.The Only Issue In Both The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.As Both The Assessees Are From The Same Group,Therefore,For Sake Of Convenience We Are Deciding The Appeals By Passing A Single Order.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 132Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

stated that the Tribunal had held that commission income should be taken at the rate of 0.15%, that it was a case of estimation of income, that assessee had not concealed particulars of income or had filed inaccurate particulars of income. The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order ... 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

ACIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Punit Construction Co., Mumbai

ITA 228/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./228/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-25(3) M/S. Punit Construction Co. Agarwal Residency, Shankar Lane, 308, C-11, Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Kandivali (W),Mumbai-67. Bandra (E),Mumbai-400 051. Pan:Aaafp 1231 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. Dayasagar-Dr Assessee By: Dr. K.Shivram-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश देश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त देश देश 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, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 11.10. 2013 Of Cit(A)-35,Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In Business As Builder & Developer.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 19.9.2010,Declaring Total Income At Rs.33.91 Lakhs.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 7.3.2013,U/S. 143(3) Of The Act,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.19.21 Crores.

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivram-ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

under consideration there are no ‘facts and figures’ to demonstrate that ‘the method adopted by the assessee in earlier years resulting in under-estimation of income’. Therefore,we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the FAA. Effective Ground of appeal is decide against the AO, considering

R.Govindarajulu, Udamalpet vs. ITO, Pollachi

Accordingly, we sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 371/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyi T.A. Nos. 1333/Mds/2014 & 371/Mds/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri R. Govindarajulu, The Income Tax Officer, No. 15, Sikkandar Batsha Street, Vs. Ward I(1), Gandhinagar (Po), Udumalpet. Pollachi. [Pan:Ahcpg9679A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mathivanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Coimbatore Dated 26.02.2014 & 29.09.2014 For The Relevant Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. For The Assessment Year 2009-10, The First Common Ground Raised In The Appeal Is With Regard To Confirmation Of Addition Of ₹. 20,00,000/- Made Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Unexplained Investment In Repayment Of Housing Loan, (2) Confirmation Of Estimation Of Income From Fast Moving Goods At 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] as unexplained investment in repayment of housing loan, (2) confirmation of estimation of income from fast moving goods at 2 I.T.A. Nos.1333/M/14 & 371/M/15 10% of the credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee without any basis