← 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

Satya Narayan, Bharatpur vs. ITO Ward 1, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1434/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1434/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Satya Narayan बनाम Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Shiv Charan Lal Satya Vs. Ward -1, Narayan, Navin Mandi Yard, Nadbai, Bharatpur Bharatpur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPN9055M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

appreciating evidences, arbitrarily finalized the assessment by rejecting books of account by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and estimated the Income by applying unprecedented and unrealistic Net Profit rate of 8 % on sales Turnover of Rs. 19,55,83,865.46 and made addition ... confer blind & unreasonable powers to A.O. to assess the Income at whatever figures he wants. The AO is bound to make an honest estimation of Income taking into consideration material 20 Satya Narayan vs. ITO available on records, past history of the case and N.P. rate held by Higher Authorities

Kavvery Perumal Satheeswaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tiruchengode

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

ITA 3102/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.:3102/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Kavvery Perumal Satheeswaran, The Income Tax Officer, 8/66, Thangavel Illam, Cauvery R.S., Vs. Ward 1, Pallipalayam, Erode 638 007. Tiruchengode. [Pan: Asxps2629A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N.C. Ravi Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 4 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find That The Reasons Explained By The Assessee Are Bonafide & Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri N.C. Ravi Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessee, bank statement and audit report, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹.10,22,021/- made on account of estimation of income while confirming the addition of ₹.48,75,000/- made on account of unexplained credits under section 69A of the Act. On being aggrieved, the assessee

Classone Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5142/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalito, Ward-6(2) Class One Exports New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Flat No.10, C ½ Model Town, Delhi-110009 Pan: Aaacc3806H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ajay Kumar, Employee Of Company Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/02/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 In Appeal No.10647/16-17 Dated 12.03.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Shares & Securities. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.09.2014 Declared Nil Income Which Stood Processed. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Class One Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Scrutiny Through Cass & The Assessment Was Completed Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Wherein The Income Under The Head Of Business In Profession Was Estimated On The Turnover Of Rs.31,28,79,852/- By Applying Profit Rate Of 2% & Net Addition Of Rs.62,57,597/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Assessee. Against Such Order The Appeal Was Filed Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Thus, The Assessee Has Preferred The Appeal Before The Tribunal By Taking Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Assessment Order & The Appeal Order Passed By Cit As Well As By Ito Is Bad Both On Facts & In The Eyes Of Law & Deserves To Be Quashed.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

erred in the eyes of law and on facts wherein it is the settled law when the books of accounts are rejected and estimation of income is done no other addition is allowed. That the learned AO as well as learned CIT appeal erred in the eyes ... hearing of this case.” 3. Since, the assessee has taken multiple grounds, however, all such grounds are roving around. The issue of estimation of income though assessee is trading in shares and commodities through online mode. Class One Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 4. Before us, the Ld. AR submits

D.C.I.T., Range-3, Lucknow vs. Shri Manoj Gupta, Lucknow

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

ITA 444/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 68

fact that the assessee ITA Nos. 355 & 444/LKW/2020 Page 10 of 10 supplied only to PSUs, which was the reason for higher estimation of income by him. In deciding ground no. 1, we have already observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the VAT assessment and we observe that ... also recorded the fact of the purchases of the assessee being verifiable as they were from PSUs. However, since the estimation of income by him is at variance with these findings recorded by him in his order, the same is not maintainable. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed

Shri Manoj Gupta, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-3, Lucknow

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

ITA 355/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 68

fact that the assessee ITA Nos. 355 & 444/LKW/2020 Page 10 of 10 supplied only to PSUs, which was the reason for higher estimation of income by him. In deciding ground no. 1, we have already observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the VAT assessment and we observe that ... also recorded the fact of the purchases of the assessee being verifiable as they were from PSUs. However, since the estimation of income by him is at variance with these findings recorded by him in his order, the same is not maintainable. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 159/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 157, 158 & 159/Ahd/2024 & Cross Objection Nos. 39, 40 & 41/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ Dcit Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar Central Circle-2(4), 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat – 380051 Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar & Dcit 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Central Circle-2(4), Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat Ahmedabad - 380051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpt3721E (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Shri Vivek Chavda & Shri Nishit Assessee By : Jesur, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. Dr 06/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2025

For Appellant: Jesur, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

record by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of appellate proceeding. 10. In respect of the second ground of estimation of income, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had upheld the rejection of books of accounts by the AO. However ... correct in reducing the estimation of income as made by the AO from 20% to 10% without any basis. 11. Per contra, Shri Vivek Chavda, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the addition made by the AO was without any application of mind and, therefore

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 158/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 157, 158 & 159/Ahd/2024 & Cross Objection Nos. 39, 40 & 41/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ Dcit Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar Central Circle-2(4), 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat – 380051 Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar & Dcit 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Central Circle-2(4), Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat Ahmedabad - 380051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpt3721E (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Shri Vivek Chavda & Shri Nishit Assessee By : Jesur, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. Dr 06/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2025

For Appellant: Jesur, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

record by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of appellate proceeding. 10. In respect of the second ground of estimation of income, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had upheld the rejection of books of accounts by the AO. However ... correct in reducing the estimation of income as made by the AO from 20% to 10% without any basis. 11. Per contra, Shri Vivek Chavda, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the addition made by the AO was without any application of mind and, therefore

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 157, 158 & 159/Ahd/2024 & Cross Objection Nos. 39, 40 & 41/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ Dcit Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar Central Circle-2(4), 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat – 380051 Hiralal Dayaram Thakkar & Dcit 1, Nilkanth Complex, Nr. Central Circle-2(4), Tv-9, Jivraj Park, Gujarat Ahmedabad - 380051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpt3721E (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Shri Vivek Chavda & Shri Nishit Assessee By : Jesur, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. Dr 06/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2025

For Appellant: Jesur, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

record by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of appellate proceeding. 10. In respect of the second ground of estimation of income, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had upheld the rejection of books of accounts by the AO. However ... correct in reducing the estimation of income as made by the AO from 20% to 10% without any basis. 11. Per contra, Shri Vivek Chavda, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the addition made by the AO was without any application of mind and, therefore