← 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 22 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Ramniklal S Gosalia & Co., Mumbai

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

ITA 7339/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 22(3) Vs. M/S Ramniklal S. 305, 3Rd Flr, Piramal Gosali & Co. Chambers Lal Baug, 608 National House Parel, Mumbai – Bapurao Jagtap Road, 400012 Jacob Circle, Mumbai – 400011. Pan/Gir No. : Aadfr2284G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Mishra, Dr Respondent By : Ms. Drutika, Ar Date Of Hearing 20.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 33 Mumbai, Passed U/S. 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mishra, DRFor Respondent: Ms. Drutika, AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80I

transactions. The A.O found that the assessee has obtained the bogus purchase bills and made addition applying the ratio of judicial decision and estimating the income @ 25% on non genuine purchases which works out to Rs.3,68,160/-(vii) Difference in receipts as per Form 26AS and could ... Ld.CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, findings of the A.O. and submissions. The CIT(A) on the disputed issue of estimation of income on purchases has restricted the addition @12.5% as against @25% and in other issues has granted relief and partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved

Cosmos Forgings Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 679/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2009-10 M/S. Cosmos Forgings Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-1(2), Pan: Aabcg 4822 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri D. Srinivas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22/4/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/4/2021 Order This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Hyderabad In Appeal No. 0247/2016-17/Dcit, Circle-1(2)/Cit(A)-1/Hyd/2018-19, Dated 11/1/2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 254 & U/S. 250(6) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Ten Grounds In Its Appeal & They Are Extracted Herein Below For Reference:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law & Thus The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri D. Srinivas, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)Section 44A

assessee directly delivers the products to third parties on behalf of assessee. 3. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the estimation of income of the assessee company made by A.O. at 1% of the turnover at Rs. 6,41,15,819/- which is not justified ... that therefore there is no reason for rejecting the book results. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the estimate of income made by A is unsustainable as the A.O. has not specifically rejected the books U/s. 145(3) of the Act to resort to estimation