← 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

Hajayakumar Mathenparambil Krishnan, Changanacherry vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 399/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Tony, CA
Section 142(1)Section 148

copies of the ledgers and the financial statements in support of his claim of expenses. The AO not accepted the said objections, had estimated the income at 8% of the turnover. 3. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT ... confirmed the estimation of income. The assessee had challenged the said order of the Ld.CIT(A) before this Tribunal. Page 5 of 7 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the AO had not given any valid reasons for rejecting the books of accounts when the assessee

Rais Ahmed Mewafarosh, Dungarpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2 Udaipur, Udaipur

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 639/JODH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

rejected the books of accounts by invoking provisions of section 145(3) and made trading addition by adopting GP/NP rate for estimation of income of the assessee for the year under consideration. In our view, where any trading addition is made, section 115 BBE is not applicable because the provisions

Rais Ahmed Mewafarosh, Dungarpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 638/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

rejected the books of accounts by invoking provisions of section 145(3) and made trading addition by adopting GP/NP rate for estimation of income of the assessee for the year under consideration. In our view, where any trading addition is made, section 115 BBE is not applicable because the provisions

Ketan Hitendrakumar Khatri, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

ITA 49/SRT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.47, 48 & 49/Srt/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Ketan Hitendrakumar Khatri Ito Prop. Aakruti Gems बनाम / Ward-2(3)92) 5/905 B-506, Bhagya Building V/S. Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate Ghiya Sheri Corner Surat - 395 001 Smc Arogya Kendra Mahidharpura, Surat 395 003 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Dqzpr 7170 M (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 18/12/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)'] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.56,54,029/ on account of alleged Estimation of income 1 percent on turnover and income declared in Return of income, hence the Balance amount Rs.56,54,029/- (12824149-7170120) treated as income

Ketan Hitendrakumar Khatri, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

ITA 48/SRT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.47, 48 & 49/Srt/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Ketan Hitendrakumar Khatri Ito Prop. Aakruti Gems बनाम / Ward-2(3)92) 5/905 B-506, Bhagya Building V/S. Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate Ghiya Sheri Corner Surat - 395 001 Smc Arogya Kendra Mahidharpura, Surat 395 003 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Dqzpr 7170 M (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 18/12/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)'] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.56,54,029/ on account of alleged Estimation of income 1 percent on turnover and income declared in Return of income, hence the Balance amount Rs.56,54,029/- (12824149-7170120) treated as income

Ketan Hitendrakumar Khatri, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

ITA 47/SRT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.47, 48 & 49/Srt/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Ketan Hitendrakumar Khatri Ito Prop. Aakruti Gems बनाम / Ward-2(3)92) 5/905 B-506, Bhagya Building V/S. Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate Ghiya Sheri Corner Surat - 395 001 Smc Arogya Kendra Mahidharpura, Surat 395 003 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Dqzpr 7170 M (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 18/12/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)'] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.56,54,029/ on account of alleged Estimation of income 1 percent on turnover and income declared in Return of income, hence the Balance amount Rs.56,54,029/- (12824149-7170120) treated as income

SHI vs. Hankar Agarwal, Corporate Centre, A K Roadvs.Individual, Bkc, Bandra (East)

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

ITA 1838/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: \nShri Ashok Bansal & Shri Ajay Daga, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Kiran Unavekar (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

prove their whereabouts. He\ntherefore, upheld the findings of the AOP that these purchases were\nbogus.\n7.2 In so far as the estimation of income is concerned, the\nld.CIT(A) observed that the only question now to be looked into is\nwhether the additional GP ratio applied @12.50% on alleged

Cottage Handicraft Textile Emporium, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Tanuj Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

material on record. Further the appellant has contended that no opportunity/show-cause was given by the Id. A.O. in respect of the proposed estimation of income after rejection of 9 Cottage Handicraft Textile Emporium vs. DCIT books of account u/s 145(3). The appellant relied on the judgment of Yaggina Veeraraghavulu

Mr. Tasavver Husain, Farrukhabad vs. ACIT, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 270A

that without finding any infirmity in the books of accounts or for that the matter rejecting the books of accounts, the AO has estimated the income of the assessee by applying a net profit rate of 1.30% to the total turnover of the assessee. Therefore, the estimation of income

Mr. Tasavver Husain, Farrukhabad vs. ACIT, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 270A

that without finding any infirmity in the books of accounts or for that the matter rejecting the books of accounts, the AO has estimated the income of the assessee by applying a net profit rate of 1.30% to the total turnover of the assessee. Therefore, the estimation of income

Bright Enterprises Private Limited Mbd House, Gulab Bhawan Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(1) New Delhi, Jao DCIT 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4792/DEL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalbright Enterprises Private Acit, Limited, Circle-5(1), Mbd House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, Jao Dcit, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi.

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

other contract receipts has been estimated by the AO after rejection of books of account under s. 145 of the Act. The estimation of income in this regard has also been made on the basis of the disclosure made by the assessee. It is now a well- established proposition ... this issue, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty. The reason being in such an estimation of income it cannot be held beyond doubt that there was furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income on the part of the assessee to justify

Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd., Kotdwar vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(4)(1), Rishikesh

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 4201/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 80

expenditure, would mandatorily lead to invocation of 145(3) of the Act, then these sections would be rendered otiose because, then by estimation of income under best judgment after rejection of accounts being mandatory would not entail specific disallowance/addition for violations of any of sections from 28 to 44DB

DCIT, Rishikesh vs. M/S Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd., Kotdwar

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 2078/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 80

expenditure, would mandatorily lead to invocation of 145(3) of the Act, then these sections would be rendered otiose because, then by estimation of income under best judgment after rejection of accounts being mandatory would not entail specific disallowance/addition for violations of any of sections from 28 to 44DB

M/S Bhagwati Distributors, Silvassa vs. ITO, Silvassa

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.26/Srt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Bhagwati Distributors, Vs. The Ito, 1 – K. K. Building, Nr. Idbi Bank, Silvassa Ward, Opp – Patel Pump, Silvassa, Silvassa Dadra & Nagar Haveli - 396230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfm7992M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/05/2025

Section 115BSection 143Section 145Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

because facts of the appellant are different. In the said case, the assessee had not maintained books of account. The assessee pleaded for estimation of income on turnover by working out peak credit. The Hon’ble Court refused for estimation at 8% of the turnover. However, facts of the appellant

Ram Niwas Yadav, Shahpura vs. Income Tax Officer Behror, Behror

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

ITA 275/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

absence of material to show net profit rate, presumptive net profit rate of 8% as stipulated in section 44AD could be taken for estimation of income. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balchand Ajitkumar 263 ITR 610 (2003) The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh Court held after considering the relevant facts

Sunrise Realconsultancy Private Limited, Bhiwadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

ITA 1308/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 271(1)(b)Section 69

absence of material\nto show net profit rate, presumptive net profit rate of 8% as stipulated in section\n44AD could be taken for estimation of income. In the case of Commissioner of\nIncome Tax Vs. Balchand Ajitkumar 263 ITR 610 (2003), the Hon'ble MP High\nCourt held that total

Sunrise Realconsultancy Private Limited, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

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

ITA 1307/JPR/2024[2013-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2013-24

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 271(1)(b)Section 69

absence of material to show net profit rate, presumptive net profit rate of 8% as stipulated in section 44AD could be taken for estimation of income. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balchand Ajitkumar 263 ITR 610 (2003), the Hon'ble MP High Court held that total

Pramodbhai Nanubhai Ahir, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 818/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has made addition of Rs. 32,95,500/- on account of estimation of income at the I.T.A No. 818/SRT/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 Pramodbhai Nanubhai Ahir vs. ITO rate of 8% on the total turnover

ACIT, CC-4(1), Kolkata vs. Sanjeev Kejriwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 2206/KOL/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील (तलाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं/It(Ss)A Nos.97 To 100/Kol/2024 & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1702/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Ys.2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Rajputana General Commercial Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs Corporation Private Limited 33B, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Aabcr 2016 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2206/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Ys.2018-2019) Sanjeev Kejriwal Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs 6/1B, Palm Avenue, Kolkata Pan No. :Aevpk 7424 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. Dr & Shri Manas Mondal, Sr.Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.04.24, 31.05.24 & 03.06.24, Passed In The Case Of The Above Two Assessees By The Cit(A), Kolkata-27, For The Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2012-2013, 2014-2015, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019, Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal to persons providing the cash. It was the submission that consequently the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment estimated the income of the assessee at 0.45%. It was the submission that the said income was assessed in the hands of each persons protectively and the substantive ... incriminating documents and statements recorded in the course of search having categorically shown that the income varied from 0.25% to 0.5%, the estimation of income of the assessee at 0.15% was not permissible, insofar as the said estimate went far below even the lower percentage as admitted by the entry

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(1), Kolkata, Income Tax vs. Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 1702/KOL/2024[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील (तलाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं/It(Ss)A Nos.97 To 100/Kol/2024 & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1702/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Ys.2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Rajputana General Commercial Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs Corporation Private Limited 33B, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Aabcr 2016 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2206/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Ys.2018-2019) Sanjeev Kejriwal Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs 6/1B, Palm Avenue, Kolkata Pan No. :Aevpk 7424 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. Dr & Shri Manas Mondal, Sr.Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.04.24, 31.05.24 & 03.06.24, Passed In The Case Of The Above Two Assessees By The Cit(A), Kolkata-27, For The Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2012-2013, 2014-2015, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019, Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal to persons providing the cash. It was the submission that consequently the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment estimated the income of the assessee at 0.45%. It was the submission that the said income was assessed in the hands of each persons protectively and the substantive ... incriminating documents and statements recorded in the course of search having categorically shown that the income varied from 0.25% to 0.5%, the estimation of income of the assessee at 0.15% was not permissible, insofar as the said estimate went far below even the lower percentage as admitted by the entry