← 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

Nayagi Fire Works Factory, Virudhunagar vs. ACIT Virudhunagar Circle, Virudhunagar

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1645/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1644/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1645/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Nayagi Fire Works Factory Acit बनाम/ 4/70, Thayilpatti – 626 128, Virudhunagar Circle, Vs. Sivakasi Via, Virudhunagar District. Virudhunagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefn-1168-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-09-2022 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-12 & 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. It Is Admitted Position That Facts As Well As Issues Are Pari-Materia The Same In Both The Years & Adjudication In Any One Year Shall Have Equal Application For The Other Year Also. The Appeal For Ay 2011-12 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

hands of the assessee since the presumptive profit rate as per statutory provision is 8%. Therefore, this rate is to be adopted for estimation of income on unaccounted sales. The same would be 8% of Rs.39,76,631/- which comes to Rs.3,18,130/-. The addition to that extent

Nayagi Fire Works Factory, Virudhunagar vs. ACIT Virudhunagar Circle, Virudhunagar

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1644/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1644/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1645/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Nayagi Fire Works Factory Acit बनाम/ 4/70, Thayilpatti – 626 128, Virudhunagar Circle, Vs. Sivakasi Via, Virudhunagar District. Virudhunagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefn-1168-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-09-2022 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-12 & 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. It Is Admitted Position That Facts As Well As Issues Are Pari-Materia The Same In Both The Years & Adjudication In Any One Year Shall Have Equal Application For The Other Year Also. The Appeal For Ay 2011-12 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

hands of the assessee since the presumptive profit rate as per statutory provision is 8%. Therefore, this rate is to be adopted for estimation of income on unaccounted sales. The same would be 8% of Rs.39,76,631/- which comes to Rs.3,18,130/-. The addition to that extent

Swapan Das, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-45(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1333/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Swapan Das Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3F/1G, Gagan Sarkar Road, Vs. 45(3), Kolkata. Beliaghata, Kolkata-700010. (Pan Agrpd2980P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Pinki Shaw, Fca Respondent By : Shri Sudip Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-13, Kolkata Vide Appeal No.10542/Cit(A)-13/Wd- 45(3)/Kol/2016-17 Dated 28.02.2019 For A.Y. 2014-15 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-45(3), Kolkata Dated 28.12.2016. 2. Smt. Pinki Shaw, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Sudip Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Smt. Pinki Shaw, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sudip Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

assessee has consistently showed more or less same percentage of gross and net profit and on the other hand, he has resorted to estimate the income of the assessee by taking gross profit rate of 10.5% as against 9.8% already shown by the assessee in his audited books of account ... been framed u/s. 144 of the Act. Action of Ld. CIT(A), in such a situation, is erroneous in resorting to an estimation of income and the exercise undertaken by him of adopting the G. P. rate of 10.5% without any basis, is not sustainable. 10.2 For our finding