← 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

ITO Ward 2, Pollachi vs. Smt R Shanthi, Villipuram

In the result, appeals by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 825/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

Mirnal Mehta, Cuttack vs. ITO Wrd-2(4), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.170/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Mrinal Mehta, Vs Ito, Ward-2(4), Cuttack Iswar Dham, Alamchand Bazar, Cuttack Pan No. :Afupm 1868 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28/04/2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052428107(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ld. Ar Has Filed His Written Submissions, Which Read As Under :- Written Submission Facts Of The Case -- The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. The Appellant Filed His Audited Return Of Income For The Aforesaid Assessment Year. The Appellant'S Return Was Selected For Scrutiny By Cass On Reason For Substantial Cash Deposits In Banks. Notices Were Served On Appellant Regarding The Matter For Verification. In Response To The Notices & Show Cause Notices The Appellant Produced All The Materials Alongwith Books Of Accounts & All The Bank Accounts Statement For Verification. The Same Was Duly Verified By The Assessing Officer & Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) On 31/12/2019. The Ao On Verification Of Bank Accounts Found That The Assessee Has Deposited Rs.58,65,000/- In The Bank Account With Icici Bank Ltd. & Treated As An Unaccounted Cash Sales Of The Assessee & Thus Gross Profit Of The Assessee Was Estimated @ 8% On The Total

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270A

submission that in the course of assessment the AO had made an addition by estimating the income of the assessee at 8% of the undisclosed cash deposit treating the same as turnover in ICICI bank, Ahmadabad, Gujarat. It was the submission that the transactions in 3 the bank account were ... assessment, consequently the original assessment 4 becomes live and the present penalty u/s.270A of the Act having been levied in respect of the estimation of income as done in the original assessment, the same is liable to be upheld. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal