← 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

Gra Engineers Amd Contractors Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO15(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4056/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2013-14 Gra Engineers & Contractors Ito-15(1)(1), Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Flat No.12, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate Jaya Mangal, Plot No.14, Mumbai-400020 Sector-19, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400706. Pan : Aaecg3526C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anil Kumar Mishra (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2025 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 04-04-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Sustenance Of Addition Of Rs. 36,52,242/- Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar MishraFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 44A

wishes to place reliance on the said provisions, which also provides that where the gross receipts have been received through banking channels, the estimation of income should be done @6% instead of 8%. It was submitted that the assessee has taken the said ground before the Ld.CIT(A). However ... case of the assessee, at the same time, given the fact that the AO has placed reliance on the said provisions for estimating the income in the hands of the assessee @8%, the assessee in turn also wishes to place reliance on the said provisions, which provides that