← 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

A.C.I.T., Circle -1, Guwahati vs. M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections by the assessee are allowed

ITA 83/GTY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 80/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Potential Vincom Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati Vs Private Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 22/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Potential Vincom Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

Section 250

Reserve Bank of India and all the subscribers companies have genuinely invested in the assessee company , in that case how the estimation of income @0.75 can I.T.A. No. 80/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 C.O. No. 22/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Potential Vincom Private Limited I.T.A. No. 81/GTY/2023 Assessment Year ... made in the most of the subscribers companies cases and the transactions of investments have been accepted in the scrutiny proceedings, then to estimate the income on the basis of total money advanced by the assessee is incorrect and cannot be sustained as it is based upon presumption and surmises

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahatiu vs. Manohar Merchants (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections by the assessee are allowed

ITA 82/GTY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 80/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Potential Vincom Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati Vs Private Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 22/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Potential Vincom Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

Section 250

Reserve Bank of India and all the subscribers companies have genuinely invested in the assessee company , in that case how the estimation of income @0.75 can I.T.A. No. 80/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 C.O. No. 22/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Potential Vincom Private Limited I.T.A. No. 81/GTY/2023 Assessment Year ... made in the most of the subscribers companies cases and the transactions of investments have been accepted in the scrutiny proceedings, then to estimate the income on the basis of total money advanced by the assessee is incorrect and cannot be sustained as it is based upon presumption and surmises

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Potencial Vincom (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections by the assessee are allowed

ITA 81/GTY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 80/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Potential Vincom Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati Vs Private Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 22/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Potential Vincom Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

Section 250

Reserve Bank of India and all the subscribers companies have genuinely invested in the assessee company , in that case how the estimation of income @0.75 can I.T.A. No. 80/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 C.O. No. 22/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Potential Vincom Private Limited I.T.A. No. 81/GTY/2023 Assessment Year ... made in the most of the subscribers companies cases and the transactions of investments have been accepted in the scrutiny proceedings, then to estimate the income on the basis of total money advanced by the assessee is incorrect and cannot be sustained as it is based upon presumption and surmises

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Potencial Vincom (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections by the assessee are allowed

ITA 80/GTY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 80/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Potential Vincom Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati Vs Private Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 22/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Potential Vincom Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

Section 250

Reserve Bank of India and all the subscribers companies have genuinely invested in the assessee company , in that case how the estimation of income @0.75 can I.T.A. No. 80/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 C.O. No. 22/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Potential Vincom Private Limited I.T.A. No. 81/GTY/2023 Assessment Year ... made in the most of the subscribers companies cases and the transactions of investments have been accepted in the scrutiny proceedings, then to estimate the income on the basis of total money advanced by the assessee is incorrect and cannot be sustained as it is based upon presumption and surmises

N.Erulappan, Chennai vs. ITO Ward I, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeals by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 714/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.825/Chny/2018 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2010-11 & C.O No.71/Chny/2018 The Income Tax Officer, Smt. R. Shanti, Ward-2, Vs. 23-B, New No.22-B, Pollachi. Rahim Layout, Villupuram – 605 602. [Pan: Bzups-1508-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.826 & 827/Chny/2018 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & C.O Nos.72 & 73/Chny/2018 The Income Tax Officer, Shri M. Vivekanandan, Ward-1, Vs. (Legal Representative Of Late M. Villupuram. Sasikala) No.34, Rahim Layout, Kk Road, Villupuram – 605 602 [Pan: Bzlps-7258-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.713 & 714/Chny/2019 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri N. Erulappan, The Income Tax Officer, No.1, 1St Floor, Vs. Ward-1, Thiruvengadam Street, Adyar, Kumbakonam. Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aajpe-2224-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

assessment and directed the A.O to assess total credits found in his bank account as income of the assessee as against the estimation of income @ 8% on total receipts by the A.O. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

N.Erulappan, Chennai vs. ITO Ward I, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeals by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 713/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.825/Chny/2018 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2010-11 & C.O No.71/Chny/2018 The Income Tax Officer, Smt. R. Shanti, Ward-2, Vs. 23-B, New No.22-B, Pollachi. Rahim Layout, Villupuram – 605 602. [Pan: Bzups-1508-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.826 & 827/Chny/2018 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & C.O Nos.72 & 73/Chny/2018 The Income Tax Officer, Shri M. Vivekanandan, Ward-1, Vs. (Legal Representative Of Late M. Villupuram. Sasikala) No.34, Rahim Layout, Kk Road, Villupuram – 605 602 [Pan: Bzlps-7258-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.713 & 714/Chny/2019 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri N. Erulappan, The Income Tax Officer, No.1, 1St Floor, Vs. Ward-1, Thiruvengadam Street, Adyar, Kumbakonam. Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aajpe-2224-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

assessment and directed the A.O to assess total credits found in his bank account as income of the assessee as against the estimation of income @ 8% on total receipts by the A.O. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

ITO Ward 2, Pollachi vs. M.Vivekanandan, (Legal Heir of Smt. M Sasikala), Villipuram

In the result, appeals by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 827/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.825/Chny/2018 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2010-11 & C.O No.71/Chny/2018 The Income Tax Officer, Smt. R. Shanti, Ward-2, Vs. 23-B, New No.22-B, Pollachi. Rahim Layout, Villupuram – 605 602. [Pan: Bzups-1508-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.826 & 827/Chny/2018 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & C.O Nos.72 & 73/Chny/2018 The Income Tax Officer, Shri M. Vivekanandan, Ward-1, Vs. (Legal Representative Of Late M. Villupuram. Sasikala) No.34, Rahim Layout, Kk Road, Villupuram – 605 602 [Pan: Bzlps-7258-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.713 & 714/Chny/2019 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri N. Erulappan, The Income Tax Officer, No.1, 1St Floor, Vs. Ward-1, Thiruvengadam Street, Adyar, Kumbakonam. Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aajpe-2224-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

assessment and directed the A.O to assess total credits found in his bank account as income of the assessee as against the estimation of income @ 8% on total receipts by the A.O. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

ITO Ward 2, Pollachi vs. M.Vivekanandan, (Legal Representative of Smt. M Sasikala), Villipuram

In the result, appeals by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 826/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.825/Chny/2018 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2010-11 & C.O No.71/Chny/2018 The Income Tax Officer, Smt. R. Shanti, Ward-2, Vs. 23-B, New No.22-B, Pollachi. Rahim Layout, Villupuram – 605 602. [Pan: Bzups-1508-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.826 & 827/Chny/2018 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & C.O Nos.72 & 73/Chny/2018 The Income Tax Officer, Shri M. Vivekanandan, Ward-1, Vs. (Legal Representative Of Late M. Villupuram. Sasikala) No.34, Rahim Layout, Kk Road, Villupuram – 605 602 [Pan: Bzlps-7258-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.713 & 714/Chny/2019 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri N. Erulappan, The Income Tax Officer, No.1, 1St Floor, Vs. Ward-1, Thiruvengadam Street, Adyar, Kumbakonam. Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aajpe-2224-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

assessment and directed the A.O to assess total credits found in his bank account as income of the assessee as against the estimation of income @ 8% on total receipts by the A.O. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before