← 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

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 1333/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2009-2010

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