← 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

Sandeep Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 29(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandeep Kr. Gupta ……………...……………………………..….……….Appellant 27/H/2, Gobra Gorasthan Road, Kolkata – 46. [Pan: Agspg8435F] Vs. Ito, Ward-29(1), Kolkata……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 21.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 336 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.7,63,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

Rs.39,99,593/-. As the assessee failed to furnish the transaction-wise details to reconcile the credits, the Assessing Officer proceeded to estimate the income @5% of the total credits of Rs.63503203/- resulting in an addition of Rs.31,75,160/- to the total income of the assessee. Consequently, the Assessing ... proceedings, however, the assessee failed to furnish complete details as called for by the Assessing Officer and consequently, the Assessing Officer proceeded to estimate the income and made the impugned addition. Further, before the ld. CIT(A) though the assessee made plea for second opportunity, however

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Lalit Kumar Prop. Lalit Co., Mis Babu Ram Hem Raj, Faridkot

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 684/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Central Circle-1 Shri Lalit Kumar Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Bvm School बनाम/ (Prop. Lalit Co. & M/S Babu Ram Hem Raj) New Grain Market Kitchlu Nagar Vs. Faridkot - 151203 Ludhiana-141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adapk-3617-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 4. Co. No.25/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. Co. No.26/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. Co. No.27/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) & Shri Vivek Vardhan
Section 147Section 68

arguments supporting the assessment as framed by Ld. AO. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, also advanced arguments and pleaded for reasonable estimation of income. Reliance has been placed on various case laws, the copies of which have been placed on record. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal ... impounded material which form the very basis of impugned addition contain the details of payment also. Therefore, the only option would be to estimate the income of the assessee on some reasonable basis. The conclusion of Ld. CIT(A), to that extent, could not be faulted with. 5. Proceeding further

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Lalit Kumar, Prop. Lalit Co., Ms Babu Ram Hem Raj, Faridkot

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 682/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Central Circle-1 Shri Lalit Kumar Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Bvm School बनाम/ (Prop. Lalit Co. & M/S Babu Ram Hem Raj) New Grain Market Kitchlu Nagar Vs. Faridkot - 151203 Ludhiana-141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adapk-3617-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 4. Co. No.25/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. Co. No.26/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. Co. No.27/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) & Shri Vivek Vardhan
Section 147Section 68

arguments supporting the assessment as framed by Ld. AO. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, also advanced arguments and pleaded for reasonable estimation of income. Reliance has been placed on various case laws, the copies of which have been placed on record. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal ... impounded material which form the very basis of impugned addition contain the details of payment also. Therefore, the only option would be to estimate the income of the assessee on some reasonable basis. The conclusion of Ld. CIT(A), to that extent, could not be faulted with. 5. Proceeding further