← 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

Anil K. Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3630/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2009-10 Anil K. Shah (Huf), Income Tax Officer, 703, Supershav, Nahur Road, Ward-41(2)(1), Sarvodaya Nagar, Vs. Room No. 636, Mulund (West), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan : Aadha5072M Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Devendra Jain & Shri Shashank Mehta For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 25-04-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10, Challenging The Sustenance Of Levy Of Penalty Of Rs. 6,96,096/- U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

addition on account of bogus purchases from 100% made by the AO to 12.5% and, therefore, it is a clear case of estimation of income by way of disallowance of the purchases and, therefore, on such estimation, penalty cannot be levied and in support, reliance was placed on the decision ... that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has reduced the addition from 100% to 12.5% and, therefore, it is a case of estimation of income and on such estimation, there cannot be any levy of penalty. Further, reference was drawn to the penalty order so passed

Shaligram Infra Projects LLP ( Ltd. Liability Partnership), Ahmedabad vs. The JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 233/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

received. 16.2 At the same time, the assessee argued before the CIT(A) that such investments and receipts should be telescoped against the estimated undisclosed income from on-money on sales already worked out in the appellate order, to avoid double taxation of the same funds. The CIT(A) accepted ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that estimated unaccounted income of on money of Rs.4,01,08,065/- (Rs.2,85,19,305 for A.Y.2018-19 + Rs.1,1d,88,760 for A.Y.2017-18) is telescoped against the undisclosed investment/payment