← 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

M/S.Shivan Giri Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4250/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Shivan Giri Steel Limited, The Income Tax Officer, M/S Vss & Associates Chartered Ward-13(2)(3), Accountants, 306, Dalamal Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Chambers, New Marine Lines, Mumbai. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 8440 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Parag Jha & Prateek Jha Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Parag Jha & Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT-DR

lacks. In ground No. 6, the 7708.18 lacks. In ground No. 6, the assessee is seeking for estimation assessee is seeking for estimation of income for commission. of income for commission. 5. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue-in- We have heard rival submissions ... accomodation entries, that assessment proceedings, that it was providing accomodation entries, that assessment proceedings, that it was providing accomodation entries, that the AO estimated commission income of the assessee at 4% of the total the AO estimated commission income of the assessee at 4% of the total the AO estimated

ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Realstone Exports Ltd, Thane

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2993/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2993/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ito-11(1)(2) M/S. Realstone Exports बिधम/ Room No.202, Aayakar Limited Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Marg, C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal Mumbai-400020. Apartments, Taki Road, Tulij, Nallasopara (E), Thane, Maharashtra- 401209. Cross Objection No. 162/Mum/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2993/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) M/S. Realstone Exports बिधम/ Ito-11(1)(2) Limited Room No.202, Aayakar Vs. C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Apartments, Taki Road, Mumbai-400020. Tulij, Nallasopara (E), Thane, Maharashtra- 401209. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8504K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. H. Usmani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross-Objection (Co) Of The Assessee Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Dated 25.01.2017 For A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani (DR)
Section 145(3)Section 68

finding various discrepancies in the books of the assessee was pleased to reject the same u/s 145(3) of the Act and estimated the income of the assessee at 1% on both purchases as well as sales shown by the assessee. On appeal ... this ground of appeal of the assessee because once the books of the accounts has been rejected and the AO has resorted to estimate the income, [one percent of sales & purchases] according to him, the AO has rightly not separately allowed the expenditure claimed in the P&L Account

ITO Ward-7(2), Jaipur, Ward-7(2) vs. M/S. Silvex & Company G-1/35 to 37, 47, 48 Epip, Jewellery Zone, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 845/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

were invoked and GP rate was applied meaning thereby that all the items of the trading account including “Purchases” stood merged in that estimation of income and any further action u/s 148 alleging one of the item of that trading account i.e. “Purchases” is mere change of opinion which cannot ... Constructions Vs. Asstt. CIT (Hyd. ‘A’) Disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) – Rejection of books vis-à-vis amount paid without TDS – Once estimation of income is made, further disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS is not warranted – That apart, if the assessee has paid

M/S. Silvex & Company India Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-7(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 834/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

were invoked and GP rate was applied meaning thereby that all the items of the trading account including “Purchases” stood merged in that estimation of income and any further action u/s 148 alleging one of the item of that trading account i.e. “Purchases” is mere change of opinion which cannot ... Constructions Vs. Asstt. CIT (Hyd. ‘A’) Disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) – Rejection of books vis-à-vis amount paid without TDS – Once estimation of income is made, further disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS is not warranted – That apart, if the assessee has paid

Smt. Lizy George, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 398/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

arrived at 4.66% of gross turnover. b. The appellant has during the course of arguments on the issue of estimation of income, submitted that the average profit percentage was 4.66% and has also submitted that the appellant would not contest it further, if the estimation of the rate of profit ... which the appellant humbly submits to be decided on different set of facts. b. The case of the assessee was reopened after estimation of income and the credits in the case of the assessee in the said case was not a business receipt and was a personal credit entry arising

Vonamala Jagdishwaraiah, Secunderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Vonomala Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Jagadishwaraiah, Income Tax, Secunderabad, Central Circle 1(1), Pan:Aaefv8917B. Hyderabad, (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.P.Ramaswami, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.3.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2018-19 By Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11 Hyderabad Dated: 31-03-2022 Challenged In This Appeal Is Against Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That A Single Appeal Is Maintainable Against Composite Orders Or Even Against Separate Orders Under The Same Enactment As Held By Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court & Hon’Ble Patna High Court & Consequently Dismissed The Appeal On Merits Arbitrarily.

For Appellant: Shri C.P.Ramaswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

order of the Assessing Officer was passed on 01.06.2020. Immediately after receiving the assessment order, the assessee noticed that the Assessing Officer while estimating the income of the assessee, has estimated the income to the tune of Rs.3,12,29,580/- on a/c of Gross Profit, and it was added ... case, the assessment was completed u/s 143{3) r.w.s i44B by rejecting the books of accounts of the appellant and thereby i 43 estimating the income of the appellant at 0.53% of the turnover, resulting in business income of Rs.3,69,527,799/-, which was the assessed income

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

that in respect of the quantum matter, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to estimate the income of the assessee at 10%. It was the submission that the penalty has not been revised after giving effect to the order ... vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). It was the submission that even in the case of estimation of income, penalty is leviable. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta, reported

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

that in respect of the quantum matter, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to estimate the income of the assessee at 10%. It was the submission that the penalty has not been revised after giving effect to the order ... vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). It was the submission that even in the case of estimation of income, penalty is leviable. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta, reported

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

that in respect of the quantum matter, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to estimate the income of the assessee at 10%. It was the submission that the penalty has not been revised after giving effect to the order ... vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). It was the submission that even in the case of estimation of income, penalty is leviable. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta, reported

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

that in respect of the quantum matter, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to estimate the income of the assessee at 10%. It was the submission that the penalty has not been revised after giving effect to the order ... vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). It was the submission that even in the case of estimation of income, penalty is leviable. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta, reported

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

that in respect of the quantum matter, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to estimate the income of the assessee at 10%. It was the submission that the penalty has not been revised after giving effect to the order ... vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). It was the submission that even in the case of estimation of income, penalty is leviable. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta, reported

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

that in respect of the quantum matter, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to estimate the income of the assessee at 10%. It was the submission that the penalty has not been revised after giving effect to the order ... vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). It was the submission that even in the case of estimation of income, penalty is leviable. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta, reported

S.M.Enterprises, Keonjhar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 11/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A Nos.128 To 132/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2013 Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008 05 To 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 153A

treated as substantive income of the assessee. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) in para 5.2 of his order estimated the income of the assessee at 10% of the total receipts of the assessee from M/s. Serajuddin & Co. It was the submission that the assessee having ... Nos.133 to 137/CTK/2013 Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2008-09 be dismissed and in respect of appeals of the assessee, the estimation of income done by the ld CIT(A) be reduced from 10% to 6%. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned assessment clearly

S.M.Enterprises, Keonjhar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 10/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A Nos.128 To 132/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2013 Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008 05 To 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 153A

treated as substantive income of the assessee. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) in para 5.2 of his order estimated the income of the assessee at 10% of the total receipts of the assessee from M/s. Serajuddin & Co. It was the submission that the assessee having ... Nos.133 to 137/CTK/2013 Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2008-09 be dismissed and in respect of appeals of the assessee, the estimation of income done by the ld CIT(A) be reduced from 10% to 6%. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned assessment clearly

M/S Hanuman Tube Well Co., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 556/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 145(3)Section 234DSection 44A

JAIPUR has been held that after rejecting the books of accounts, the past results of an assessee are the best guide for making estimation of income. It is seen that in the immediate two preceding assessment years as detailed above, the appellant has shown NP Rate

Srinath Reddy Nalla, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1233/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Srinath Reddy Nalla, Vs. Income Tax Officer, R/O.Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Pan : Aagpn8178E. Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/10/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) – 6, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. Ita 1233/Hyd/2019

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 50

purchased after that date, if any. Therefore, I do not find fault with the AO in rejecting the books of account and estimating the income. 7.20. Coming to the profitability of the assessee's business for earlier AY vis-a-vis huge amount of loss disclosed in the current ... case, the AO has a discretionary power to reject the books of account maintained by an assessee and complete the assessment by estimation of income to the best of his judgement. It is well settled legal position that as per subsection (3) of section

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5579/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

itself were not enough to make addition as per estimate of the Assessing Officer. It was observed:- "Now the question is regarding estimating the income on the basis of these loose slips. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer is not justified in estimating the sales on the basis of loose ... basis of estimates and targets. On going through the AO’s finding on the issue it is seen that the estimation of income from Meerut & Jaipur project has it’s origin in Annexure -2 seized by the search party SOV-6A & SOB-6. Reference has been made to a seized

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5392/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

itself were not enough to make addition as per estimate of the Assessing Officer. It was observed:- "Now the question is regarding estimating the income on the basis of these loose slips. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer is not justified in estimating the sales on the basis of loose ... basis of estimates and targets. On going through the AO’s finding on the issue it is seen that the estimation of income from Meerut & Jaipur project has it’s origin in Annexure -2 seized by the search party SOV-6A & SOB-6. Reference has been made to a seized

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5231/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

itself were not enough to make addition as per estimate of the Assessing Officer. It was observed:- "Now the question is regarding estimating the income on the basis of these loose slips. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer is not justified in estimating the sales on the basis of loose ... basis of estimates and targets. On going through the AO’s finding on the issue it is seen that the estimation of income from Meerut & Jaipur project has it’s origin in Annexure -2 seized by the search party SOV-6A & SOB-6. Reference has been made to a seized

DCIT, Circle - 3 (1), Trichy vs. Shri Srinivasan Devendran, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2675/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Srinivasan Devendran, Income Tax, Circle , No. 25, I.A.S. Nagar, Trichy. Trichy 620 013. [Pan:Abspd3194P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Johanson, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 14.09.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

Section 143(3)Section 44A

records, as required, the Assessing Officer determined income on an estimate at 8% under section 44AD of the Act. As a result of estimation of income from 3.5% to 8% on the ground turnover of ₹.74,53,84,939/- 3 I.T.A. No. 2675/Chny/19 (i.e., ₹.5,96,30,795), the income