← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sunshine Estateconstruction India LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 387/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 1 381/Hyd/2023 Acit Central Circle Bhoomika Agro 2020-21 2(2) Hyderabad Farms (P) Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 2 382/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 3 Co 7/Hyd/2023 Bhoomika Agro Acit Central Circle 2020-21 (Ita 381/H/23) Farms (P) Ltd 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 4 Co 8/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 382/H/23) 5 385/Hyd/2023 -Do- Sunshine Estate 2019-20 Construction India Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 6 386/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 7 387/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2022-22 8 Co3/Hyd/2023 Sunshine Estate Acit Central Circle 2019-20 (Ita 385/H/23) Construction India 2(2) Hyderabad Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 9 Co4/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 (Ita 386/H/23) 10 Co5/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 387/H/23) 11 388/Hyd/2023 -Do- Krishi Housing (P) 2017-18 Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B 12 389/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 13 390/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2019-20 14 391/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 15 392/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 16 Co9/Hyd/2023 Krishi Housing (P) Acit Central Circle 2017-18 (Ita 388/H/23) Ltd Hyderabad 2(2) Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B

thus assessed the income of the entities of SIG group on the basis of the said day sheets and concluding that the estimation of income would be the best proposition to determine the taxable income of the entities of the SIG group. There was no consequent search or survey conducted ... although the learned CIT (A), in principle agreed that the appellant working as a mediator/aggregator and earns only commission income, but erred in estimating 10% income on total unaccounted cash received from M/s. Spectra Group even though the Director of the appellant company in his statement recorded

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sunshine Estateconstruction India LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 386/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 1 381/Hyd/2023 Acit Central Circle Bhoomika Agro 2020-21 2(2) Hyderabad Farms (P) Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 2 382/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 3 Co 7/Hyd/2023 Bhoomika Agro Acit Central Circle 2020-21 (Ita 381/H/23) Farms (P) Ltd 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 4 Co 8/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 382/H/23) 5 385/Hyd/2023 -Do- Sunshine Estate 2019-20 Construction India Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 6 386/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 7 387/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2022-22 8 Co3/Hyd/2023 Sunshine Estate Acit Central Circle 2019-20 (Ita 385/H/23) Construction India 2(2) Hyderabad Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 9 Co4/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 (Ita 386/H/23) 10 Co5/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 387/H/23) 11 388/Hyd/2023 -Do- Krishi Housing (P) 2017-18 Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B 12 389/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 13 390/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2019-20 14 391/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 15 392/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 16 Co9/Hyd/2023 Krishi Housing (P) Acit Central Circle 2017-18 (Ita 388/H/23) Ltd Hyderabad 2(2) Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B

thus assessed the income of the entities of SIG group on the basis of the said day sheets and concluding that the estimation of income would be the best proposition to determine the taxable income of the entities of the SIG group. There was no consequent search or survey conducted ... although the learned CIT (A), in principle agreed that the appellant working as a mediator/aggregator and earns only commission income, but erred in estimating 10% income on total unaccounted cash received from M/s. Spectra Group even though the Director of the appellant company in his statement recorded

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sunshine Estateconstruction India LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 385/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 1 381/Hyd/2023 Acit Central Circle Bhoomika Agro 2020-21 2(2) Hyderabad Farms (P) Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 2 382/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 3 Co 7/Hyd/2023 Bhoomika Agro Acit Central Circle 2020-21 (Ita 381/H/23) Farms (P) Ltd 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 4 Co 8/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 382/H/23) 5 385/Hyd/2023 -Do- Sunshine Estate 2019-20 Construction India Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 6 386/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 7 387/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2022-22 8 Co3/Hyd/2023 Sunshine Estate Acit Central Circle 2019-20 (Ita 385/H/23) Construction India 2(2) Hyderabad Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 9 Co4/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 (Ita 386/H/23) 10 Co5/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 387/H/23) 11 388/Hyd/2023 -Do- Krishi Housing (P) 2017-18 Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B 12 389/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 13 390/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2019-20 14 391/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 15 392/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 16 Co9/Hyd/2023 Krishi Housing (P) Acit Central Circle 2017-18 (Ita 388/H/23) Ltd Hyderabad 2(2) Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B

thus assessed the income of the entities of SIG group on the basis of the said day sheets and concluding that the estimation of income would be the best proposition to determine the taxable income of the entities of the SIG group. There was no consequent search or survey conducted ... although the learned CIT (A), in principle agreed that the appellant working as a mediator/aggregator and earns only commission income, but erred in estimating 10% income on total unaccounted cash received from M/s. Spectra Group even though the Director of the appellant company in his statement recorded

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Bhoomika Agro Farms Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 382/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 1 381/Hyd/2023 Acit Central Circle Bhoomika Agro 2020-21 2(2) Hyderabad Farms (P) Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 2 382/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 3 Co 7/Hyd/2023 Bhoomika Agro Acit Central Circle 2020-21 (Ita 381/H/23) Farms (P) Ltd 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 4 Co 8/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 382/H/23) 5 385/Hyd/2023 -Do- Sunshine Estate 2019-20 Construction India Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 6 386/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 7 387/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2022-22 8 Co3/Hyd/2023 Sunshine Estate Acit Central Circle 2019-20 (Ita 385/H/23) Construction India 2(2) Hyderabad Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 9 Co4/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 (Ita 386/H/23) 10 Co5/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 387/H/23) 11 388/Hyd/2023 -Do- Krishi Housing (P) 2017-18 Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B 12 389/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 13 390/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2019-20 14 391/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 15 392/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 16 Co9/Hyd/2023 Krishi Housing (P) Acit Central Circle 2017-18 (Ita 388/H/23) Ltd Hyderabad 2(2) Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B

thus assessed the income of the entities of SIG group on the basis of the said day sheets and concluding that the estimation of income would be the best proposition to determine the taxable income of the entities of the SIG group. There was no consequent search or survey conducted ... although the learned CIT (A), in principle agreed that the appellant working as a mediator/aggregator and earns only commission income, but erred in estimating 10% income on total unaccounted cash received from M/s. Spectra Group even though the Director of the appellant company in his statement recorded

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Hyderabad vs. Bhoomika Agro Farms Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 381/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 1 381/Hyd/2023 Acit Central Circle Bhoomika Agro 2020-21 2(2) Hyderabad Farms (P) Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 2 382/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 3 Co 7/Hyd/2023 Bhoomika Agro Acit Central Circle 2020-21 (Ita 381/H/23) Farms (P) Ltd 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 4 Co 8/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 382/H/23) 5 385/Hyd/2023 -Do- Sunshine Estate 2019-20 Construction India Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 6 386/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 7 387/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2022-22 8 Co3/Hyd/2023 Sunshine Estate Acit Central Circle 2019-20 (Ita 385/H/23) Construction India 2(2) Hyderabad Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 9 Co4/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 (Ita 386/H/23) 10 Co5/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 387/H/23) 11 388/Hyd/2023 -Do- Krishi Housing (P) 2017-18 Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B 12 389/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 13 390/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2019-20 14 391/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 15 392/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 16 Co9/Hyd/2023 Krishi Housing (P) Acit Central Circle 2017-18 (Ita 388/H/23) Ltd Hyderabad 2(2) Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B

thus assessed the income of the entities of SIG group on the basis of the said day sheets and concluding that the estimation of income would be the best proposition to determine the taxable income of the entities of the SIG group. There was no consequent search or survey conducted ... although the learned CIT (A), in principle agreed that the appellant working as a mediator/aggregator and earns only commission income, but erred in estimating 10% income on total unaccounted cash received from M/s. Spectra Group even though the Director of the appellant company in his statement recorded

Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 19(6), Chennai vs. Moorthy Vinodhini, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 436/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.436/Chny/2024 िनधा7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Moorthy Vinodhini, Non Corporate Ward-19(6), Vs. New No.49, Second Floor, Chennai. Navarathna Garden, Second Street, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai – 600032. [Pan: Agupv 0267C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Assessee By Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate : HiथF की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.S.Phanidharan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M :

For Respondent: Shri N.S.Phanidharan, JCIT
Section 144Section 44ASection 69

bank account as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has estimated the income @ 1.5% of the credit in the bank account and accordingly, restricted the addition to the tune of Rs. 10,35,000/-. 4. The Revenue is in appeal against adopting ... profit in her line of business is usually above 1.2% to 1.8%, but has not given any comparable case. Therefore, estimation of income is arbitrary and against the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has supported the order

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1513/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

time. Therefore, these were not trading receipts. The Ld. AO did not conduct any enquiry to ascertain the nature of credits and erroneously estimated the income @8%. Therefore, the assessment order was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of Clause ... concluded that credits in the bank account represent business receipts and accordingly, estimated net profit on presumptive basis by applying presumptive rates of estimation of income. The assessment was framed on best judgment basis wherein the income is assessed to the best judgment of Ld. AO without considering

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1512/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

time. Therefore, these were not trading receipts. The Ld. AO did not conduct any enquiry to ascertain the nature of credits and erroneously estimated the income @8%. Therefore, the assessment order was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of Clause ... concluded that credits in the bank account represent business receipts and accordingly, estimated net profit on presumptive basis by applying presumptive rates of estimation of income. The assessment was framed on best judgment basis wherein the income is assessed to the best judgment of Ld. AO without considering

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1511/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

time. Therefore, these were not trading receipts. The Ld. AO did not conduct any enquiry to ascertain the nature of credits and erroneously estimated the income @8%. Therefore, the assessment order was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of Clause ... concluded that credits in the bank account represent business receipts and accordingly, estimated net profit on presumptive basis by applying presumptive rates of estimation of income. The assessment was framed on best judgment basis wherein the income is assessed to the best judgment of Ld. AO without considering

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1510/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

time. Therefore, these were not trading receipts. The Ld. AO did not conduct any enquiry to ascertain the nature of credits and erroneously estimated the income @8%. Therefore, the assessment order was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of Clause ... concluded that credits in the bank account represent business receipts and accordingly, estimated net profit on presumptive basis by applying presumptive rates of estimation of income. The assessment was framed on best judgment basis wherein the income is assessed to the best judgment of Ld. AO without considering

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1509/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

time. Therefore, these were not trading receipts. The Ld. AO did not conduct any enquiry to ascertain the nature of credits and erroneously estimated the income @8%. Therefore, the assessment order was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of Clause ... concluded that credits in the bank account represent business receipts and accordingly, estimated net profit on presumptive basis by applying presumptive rates of estimation of income. The assessment was framed on best judgment basis wherein the income is assessed to the best judgment of Ld. AO without considering

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1508/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

time. Therefore, these were not trading receipts. The Ld. AO did not conduct any enquiry to ascertain the nature of credits and erroneously estimated the income @8%. Therefore, the assessment order was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of Clause ... concluded that credits in the bank account represent business receipts and accordingly, estimated net profit on presumptive basis by applying presumptive rates of estimation of income. The assessment was framed on best judgment basis wherein the income is assessed to the best judgment of Ld. AO without considering

Chandrasekhar Yernena, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 125/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.125/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Chandrasekhar Yernena, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 39-31-68, Gandhi Nagar, Ward-4(1), Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam-530018, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Abqpy2029N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri N.V. Ramana Murthy, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 10/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri N.V. Ramana Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

family members. Therefore, the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice dated 03/12/2018 and communicated the Ld. 3 AO’s proposal for estimation of income. However, there was no response from the assessee and therefore the Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment. During the assessment proceedings ... made addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO estimated the income of the assessee from liquor business ie., @ 5% on the total stock put to sale (Rs. 3,62,48,715/-) which worked

Ajay Khannawala, Rourkela vs. ITO, Ward -2, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 304/CTK/2024[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Ajay Ajay Khannawala, Khannawala, C/O. C/O. Vs. Ito, Ward Ward -2, Kadamawala Kadamawala & & Co., Co., Ca, Ca, Rourkela Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Market, Market, Kachery Road, Rourkela. Kachery Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/0 09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/0 /09/2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Aga This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Nst The Order Of The Ld Addl/Jcit(A), Addl/Jcit(A), Madurai Madurai Dated 5.6.2024 5.6.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A)Sambalpur/10168/2016 Sambalpur/10168/2016-17, For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri M.R.Sahu, M.R.Sahu, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty The Assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR
Section 145(3)Section 263

order at page -1. It was the submission that consequential order has been passed by the Assessing Officer, wherein, the Assessing Officer has estimated the income of the assessee by applying net profit rate at 8% of the gross receipts. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer ... case of Sayqul Islam vs ITO (2020) 118 TAXMANN.COM 347(Gauhati) without rejecting the books of account, the Assessing officer could not have estimated the income of the assessee. P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 6. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order