← 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Agri Gold Construction Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 16/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No A.Y Appellant Respondent 16/Hyd/2018 2009-10 Dy.Cit, Central Agri Gold Circle-2(4) Construction (P) Hyderabad Ltd, Vijayawada Pan:Aadca5210E 17/Hyd/2018 2010-11 -Do- -Do- 18/Hyd/2018 2011-12 -Do- -Do- 19/Hyd/2018 2012-13 -Do- -Do- 20/Hyd/2018 2013-14 -Do- -Do- 21/Hyd/2018 2014-15 -Do- -Do- 213/Hyd/2018 2008-09 -Do- -Do- 1171/Hyd/2018 2015-16 -Do- -Do- 48/Hyd/2018 2009-10 Agri Gold Dy.Cit, Central Construction (P) Circle-2(4) Ltd, Vijayawada Hyderabad Pan:Aadca5210E 49/Hyd/2018 2010-11 -Do- -Do- 50/Hyd/2018 2011-12 -Do- -Do- 51/Hyd/2018 2012-13 -Do- -Do- 52/Hyd/2018 2013-14 -Do- -Do- 53/Hyd/2018 2014-15 -Do- -Do- 1888/Hyd/2018 2015-16 -Do- -Do- Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A Revenue By: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2022 Order Per Bench: The Above Batch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively Are Directed Against The Separate Orders

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 68

admitting income of Rs.1,24,40,453/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 22.2.2011 wherein he had estimated the income from sale of plots @5% of the turnover, interest income @ 5%, income from construction activity @ 8% and income from insurance commission @ 50%. Subsequently, a search ... another 14 appeals 3. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income @ 5% of the gross receipts and sustained the addition of Rs.2,45,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68. So far as the interest income of Rs.4

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Agri Gold Constructions Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1171/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No A.Y Appellant Respondent 16/Hyd/2018 2009-10 Dy.Cit, Central Agri Gold Circle-2(4) Construction (P) Hyderabad Ltd, Vijayawada Pan:Aadca5210E 17/Hyd/2018 2010-11 -Do- -Do- 18/Hyd/2018 2011-12 -Do- -Do- 19/Hyd/2018 2012-13 -Do- -Do- 20/Hyd/2018 2013-14 -Do- -Do- 21/Hyd/2018 2014-15 -Do- -Do- 213/Hyd/2018 2008-09 -Do- -Do- 1171/Hyd/2018 2015-16 -Do- -Do- 48/Hyd/2018 2009-10 Agri Gold Dy.Cit, Central Construction (P) Circle-2(4) Ltd, Vijayawada Hyderabad Pan:Aadca5210E 49/Hyd/2018 2010-11 -Do- -Do- 50/Hyd/2018 2011-12 -Do- -Do- 51/Hyd/2018 2012-13 -Do- -Do- 52/Hyd/2018 2013-14 -Do- -Do- 53/Hyd/2018 2014-15 -Do- -Do- 1888/Hyd/2018 2015-16 -Do- -Do- Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A Revenue By: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2022 Order Per Bench: The Above Batch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Respectively Are Directed Against The Separate Orders

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 68

admitting income of Rs.1,24,40,453/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 22.2.2011 wherein he had estimated the income from sale of plots @5% of the turnover, interest income @ 5%, income from construction activity @ 8% and income from insurance commission @ 50%. Subsequently, a search ... another 14 appeals 3. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income @ 5% of the gross receipts and sustained the addition of Rs.2,45,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68. So far as the interest income of Rs.4

Dy CIT - 26(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Pratibha China State Joint Venture Universal Majextic, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 468/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.468 /Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-26(1) M/S Pratibha China State Room No 623, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Joint Venture Vs. Universal Majestic, 14Th Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Floor, Off Eastern Expressway, Ghatkopar Mankhud Link Road, Govandi, Mumbai-400043 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabap0740 (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Mr. Hiren Bhatt, Sr Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Hiren Bhatt, Sr AR
Section 143(2)Section 145

assessment was completed on 26.12.2016 determining total income at Rs.4,48,24,535/- after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee and estimating the income @8% of total project cost. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) wherein ... same that the genuineness of the purchases were not proved and, therefore, proposed to reject the books of accounts of the appellant and estimated the income at 8% of the gross receipts as per industry standard. In response, the appellant submitted that no deficiency had been pointed