← 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 CIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Jefferies India P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.457/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Cir 4(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Jefferies India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.649, 6Th Floor, 42 & 43, 2 North Avenue, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400051. & Cross Objection No.151/Mum/2021 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 457/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Jefferies India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cir 4(3)(1) Room No.649, 6Th Floor, 42 & 43, 2 North Avenue, Vs. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bandra (E), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj7850R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma Assessee By: Shri M.P. Lohia/Nikhil Tiwari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 05.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15. C.O. No.151/Mum/2021 A.Y.2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia/Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 145(1)

ground that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition made in the assessment order on account of estimation of income of Rs 7,10,84,939/- and also addition of other income of Rs 18,69,92,012/- over and above the returned income ... deleted the addition by rightly concluding that book result of the Respondent is correct, wherein the Ld. AO made the addition by estimating the income, without appreciating the factual background and without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard by rejecting the book results of the Respondent; 3. erred in objecting

Karla Srinivasa Rao, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 15/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. Nos.14 & 15/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sri Karla Srinivasa Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-2(4), Vijayawada. Pan: Alwpk 9656 K (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By Sri G.V.N. Hari, Ar : प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar : सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 16/03/2022 : घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2022 O R D E R Per Bench: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assesseee. Since These Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee & One Ay 2013-14, They Are Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Off In This Consolidated Order.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

estimating the business income. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the Assessing officer to estimate the income @ 3% of stock put to sale. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 4. Brief facts ... inclined to uphold the order of AO on this ground. 8. With respect to Ground No 3 with regard to the estimation of income, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee, as submitted by the Ld. AR, wherein the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal

Karla Srinivasa Rao, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 14/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. Nos.14 & 15/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sri Karla Srinivasa Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-2(4), Vijayawada. Pan: Alwpk 9656 K (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By Sri G.V.N. Hari, Ar : प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar : सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 16/03/2022 : घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2022 O R D E R Per Bench: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assesseee. Since These Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee & One Ay 2013-14, They Are Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Off In This Consolidated Order.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

estimating the business income. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the Assessing officer to estimate the income @ 3% of stock put to sale. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 4. Brief facts ... inclined to uphold the order of AO on this ground. 8. With respect to Ground No 3 with regard to the estimation of income, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee, as submitted by the Ld. AR, wherein the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajahmundry vs. K.Venkata Raju, Rajahmundry

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 501/VIZ/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.501/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S K.Venkata Raju Circle-2(1) D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Rajahmundry Kadiam Mandal Rajahmundry [Pan : Aabfk4007A] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.153/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.501/Viz/2019) (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S K.Venkata Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Tax Kadiam Mandal Circle-2(1) Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Aabfk4007A] अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Balakrishnan Scondonation Of Delay :

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

income clear of depreciation made by the AO be upheld. The crux of the issue is allowability of depreciation from the estimation of income. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in execution of civil contracts. During the A.Y.2008-09, the firm filed its return ... proposal was agreed by the assessee also as observed by the AO. The AO as mentioned in para 10 of the assessment order, estimated total income at Rs.4,38,33,473/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), Rajahmundry. The Ld.CIT

Sudhir Mahamunkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5447/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudhir Mahamunkar Vs. Ito, Ward – 26(3)(3) 41/12, Vijay Vilas,Vijay Pratyakshakar Bhavan Vilas Road, C-11, Room No. 505, Gb Road Kavesar, 5Th Floor, Bkc, Thane (W) – 400615 Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajdpm2635F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Kapil Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumaryadav.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Passed 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Kapil Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh KumarYadav.DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

entered by the assessee and the BPL communication services. Finally the A.O. considering the facts of total payments/ turnover with the BPL has estimated commission income@ 5% i.e Rs.19,89,593/- and disallowance of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 9,69,231/- and passed order u/s 143 r.w.s ... time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O by estimating the income of the assessee being a commission earner at higher side and overlooking the payments made to the BPL/Loop also towards the same transactions which was treated