← 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

ACIT Non Corporate Circle-1, Chennai vs. Rangaraj Anjan Kumar, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3494/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3493 & 3494/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner- V. Mr. Rangaraj Anjan Kumar, New No.10, 9Th Street, Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-04. [Pan: Aerpa 0064 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ""थ" की ओर से /Department By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Sheetal Borkar, Adv. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Ms.Sheetal Borkar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 144A

learned CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A, has erred in estimating the income of the assessee when the turnover of the assessee is more than 2 Crores. 3. The Ld. CIT(A, has erred in estimating the income ... gross receipts when the assessee himself has estimated the income @ 8%? 4. The Id. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence in the form of bills and vouchers which was not presented during the scrutiny proceedings without calling for remand report from AO thereby violating Rule 47A? 5. For these

ACIT Non Corporate Circle-1, Chennai vs. Rangaraj Anjan Kumar, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3493/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3493 & 3494/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner- V. Mr. Rangaraj Anjan Kumar, New No.10, 9Th Street, Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-04. [Pan: Aerpa 0064 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ""थ" की ओर से /Department By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Sheetal Borkar, Adv. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Ms.Sheetal Borkar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 144A

learned CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A, has erred in estimating the income of the assessee when the turnover of the assessee is more than 2 Crores. 3. The Ld. CIT(A, has erred in estimating the income ... gross receipts when the assessee himself has estimated the income @ 8%? 4. The Id. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence in the form of bills and vouchers which was not presented during the scrutiny proceedings without calling for remand report from AO thereby violating Rule 47A? 5. For these

Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, Alamuru Mandal vs. Incpme Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 208/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.205/Viz/2022 To 208/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-117, Chemundulanka Ward-1(4) Alamuru Mandal Visakhapatnam East Godavari [Pan : Ajkpd0253B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 144

Godavari crore. However, the assessee neither furnished any of these during the assessment proceedings nor filed written submissions. Hence, the AO has rightly estimated the income @20% of the gross receipts as per 26AS which worked out to Rs.23,56,450/- and completed the assessment. 4. On being aggrieved ... No.1 and 7 are general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 6. Ground No. 2 to 6 are related to the estimation of income @20% on turnover as per Form 26AS. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the income

Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, Alamuru Mandal vs. Income Tax Offcer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 207/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.205/Viz/2022 To 208/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-117, Chemundulanka Ward-1(4) Alamuru Mandal Visakhapatnam East Godavari [Pan : Ajkpd0253B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 144

Godavari crore. However, the assessee neither furnished any of these during the assessment proceedings nor filed written submissions. Hence, the AO has rightly estimated the income @20% of the gross receipts as per 26AS which worked out to Rs.23,56,450/- and completed the assessment. 4. On being aggrieved ... No.1 and 7 are general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 6. Ground No. 2 to 6 are related to the estimation of income @20% on turnover as per Form 26AS. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the income

Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, Alamuru Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 206/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.205/Viz/2022 To 208/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-117, Chemundulanka Ward-1(4) Alamuru Mandal Visakhapatnam East Godavari [Pan : Ajkpd0253B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 144

Godavari crore. However, the assessee neither furnished any of these during the assessment proceedings nor filed written submissions. Hence, the AO has rightly estimated the income @20% of the gross receipts as per 26AS which worked out to Rs.23,56,450/- and completed the assessment. 4. On being aggrieved ... No.1 and 7 are general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 6. Ground No. 2 to 6 are related to the estimation of income @20% on turnover as per Form 26AS. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the income

Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao, Alamuru Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 205/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.205/Viz/2022 To 208/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dulam Peda Tirupathi Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-117, Chemundulanka Ward-1(4) Alamuru Mandal Visakhapatnam East Godavari [Pan : Ajkpd0253B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 144

Godavari crore. However, the assessee neither furnished any of these during the assessment proceedings nor filed written submissions. Hence, the AO has rightly estimated the income @20% of the gross receipts as per 26AS which worked out to Rs.23,56,450/- and completed the assessment. 4. On being aggrieved ... No.1 and 7 are general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 6. Ground No. 2 to 6 are related to the estimation of income @20% on turnover as per Form 26AS. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the income

Bhaskara Rao Gudla, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 224/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.224/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Bhaskara Rao Gudla Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.10-05-42 Ward-1 Prakash Building Srikakulam Kaling Road Market Street Srikakulam [Pan : Ahrpg2923Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmaniam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasad Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/ 1046187321(1) Dated 06.10.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015- 16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Engaged In The Business Of Vegetable Trading, Whereby, He Procures Vegetables

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmaniam, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasad Rao, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250

case and provisions of law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the action of AO wherein the AO, having resorted to estimation of income on the cash deposits in the bank of Rs.1,78,81,720/-, considering the same as business turnover of assessee, on which there ... require specific adjudication. 6. Ground No.2 is related to treating the cash withdrawals from assessee’s bank account as turnover and estimating the income thereon. The Ld.AR argued that the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the AO treating the cash withdrawls from bank account

Sri Santhosh Damodar Naik, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -2(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1157/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Santosh Damodar Naik, Vs. Acit, Truck Owner, Near Vishwadarshani Central Circle – 2(4), Sch Balgimane Tq Yellapur, Bengaluru. Uttara Kannada – 581 359. Pan : Amnpn 9965 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Cuddapah Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.10.2022 Of Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee An Individual Is Engaged In The Business Of Supplying Of Building Materials. There Was A Search & Seizure Operation Carried Out Under Section 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’), In The Case Of One Mr. Muniraju On 09.10.2016. In The Course Of Search, Documents Were Seized. The Residence Of The Assessee Was Also Covered By The Warrant Of Authorization Of Search Though The Search Was In The Case Of Muniraju. Documents Were Seized From The Residence Of The Assessee. Since The Documents Had A Bearing On The Determination Of The Total Income Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014-15, Notice Under Section 153C Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Cuddapah Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 153CSection 44A

assessee is against all canons of tax where only income has to be assessed. I am also of the view that estimation of income would be the appropriate course of action in the given facts and circumstances of the case. I, therefore, restrict the addition made

Income Tax Officer 25(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sheetal Exports, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2987/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2987/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-25(3)(1), बिधम/ Sheetal Exports 2Nd Floor, Room No. 233, 202 Triveni 21 Lajpatrai Vs. Kautilya Bhavan G. Block, Road, Vile Parle (W) Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400056 Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abgfs0869L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Amit C. Zaveri & Dharmil Zaveri Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Directing The Ao To Restrict Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs. 2,67,00,986/- From 100% To 3% Of The Bogus Purchases Made Of Rs. 2,67,00,986/-.

For Appellant: Shri Amit C. Zaveri & DharmilFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan (Sr. AR)
Section 68

addition at 3% of the bogus purchases of Rs. 2,67,00,986/- which comes to Rs.18,83,190/-. In respect of estimation of income at 3% of the bogus purchases, we note that the assessee’s total trading account shows GP of 1.70%; and on account of the bogus