← 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

Psb Constructions, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(5), Madurai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14,

ITA 2288/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2286, 2287 & 2288/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 P S B Constructions, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 356, 5Th Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(5), Gandhi Nagar (P.O.), K.K. Nagar, Madurai. Madurai 625 020. [Pan: Aaffp6937J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate & Shri S. Kumarasubramanian, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But Identical Orders All Dated 30.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

taxmann.com 253 (Madras) and submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied based on the estimation of income and prayed to delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. The ld. DR Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT relied ... supra), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was pleased to hold that there cannot be any imposition of penalty based on estimation of income. In the present case also, the net income of the assessee was estimated at 8% in pursuance to the order of the ld. PCIT

Psb Constructions, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(5), Madurai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14,

ITA 2287/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2286, 2287 & 2288/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 P S B Constructions, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 356, 5Th Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(5), Gandhi Nagar (P.O.), K.K. Nagar, Madurai. Madurai 625 020. [Pan: Aaffp6937J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate & Shri S. Kumarasubramanian, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But Identical Orders All Dated 30.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

taxmann.com 253 (Madras) and submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied based on the estimation of income and prayed to delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. The ld. DR Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT relied ... supra), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was pleased to hold that there cannot be any imposition of penalty based on estimation of income. In the present case also, the net income of the assessee was estimated at 8% in pursuance to the order of the ld. PCIT

Psb Constructions, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(5), Madurai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14,

ITA 2286/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2286, 2287 & 2288/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 P S B Constructions, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 356, 5Th Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(5), Gandhi Nagar (P.O.), K.K. Nagar, Madurai. Madurai 625 020. [Pan: Aaffp6937J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate & Shri S. Kumarasubramanian, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But Identical Orders All Dated 30.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

taxmann.com 253 (Madras) and submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied based on the estimation of income and prayed to delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. The ld. DR Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT relied ... supra), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was pleased to hold that there cannot be any imposition of penalty based on estimation of income. In the present case also, the net income of the assessee was estimated at 8% in pursuance to the order of the ld. PCIT

Dibakar Swain, Chhoti Nikirai, Kendrapara vs. ITO, Ward Kendrapada, Kendrapada

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 562/CTK/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-18 Dibakar Dibakar Swain, Swain, Vs. Ito, Ward, Chakargunathpur, Chakargunathpur, Chhoti Chhoti Kendrapara. Nikirai, Kendrapara Nikirai, Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Bbnxps 2582 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Delhi Dated Dated Dated 17.8.2023 17.8.2023 17.8.2023 In In In Appeal Appeal Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10899/2019 No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10899/2019-20 For The Assessment Year Essment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri S.K.Sarangi S.K.Sarangi Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

general in nature. 6. Ground No.2 relates to addition of Rs.44,92,000/- made u/s.69A of the Act. Ground No.3 relates to estimation of income by applying 6% profit rate on declared turnover resulting into the addition of Rs.30,96,398/-. Since both the grounds of appeal are inter-connected ... registers have already been submitted to the Excise Department, they could not be available for examination by the Assessing Officer. With regard to estimation of income, ld AR submits that estimation was on higher side though the Assessing Officer has stated it reasonable , however, had not cited any single case

Shri Devendra Thakershibhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 587/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.587/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2913-14 Devendra Thakershibhai The Ito बनाम/ Thakkar Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Prop. Of Prism Agri Ahmedabad – 380 015 Tradelink Ravjipura Nava Bazar, Bavla Tal: Dascroi Ahmedabad – 380 057 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aospt 8109 B अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 145(2)

fact that no adverse findings were brought out by the A.O. during remand proceedings. 2. Both, the Ld. AO has erred in estimating the income of the assessee @ 0.5% on the gross turnover and the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in estimating the income of the assessee @ 0.1% overlooking ... rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3), citing that they were incomplete and lacked supporting details, leading to an estimation of income at 0.5% of turnover. The CIT(A), while upholding the rejection, reduced the estimation to 0.1% of turnover based on judicial precedents. However, during remand proceedings