← 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

Bijjala Eswara Rao, Khammam vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 628/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P.Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand, DR
Section 44A

Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Hyderabad, dated 24-01-2018. 2. All ground raised in this appeal are related to the estimation of income made by the Assessing Officer (AO), which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged ... absence of bills and vouchers to support the expenditure claimed by the assessee, the AO rejected the books of account and estimated the income of the assessee @8.5% of the gross bills and accordingly determined the total income at Rs.1,15,47,492/- on main contract works executed

Sri Panati Vidyanath Reddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal is filed by assessee for assessment year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1771/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 153C

Paper book.] • For the assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 the Hon'ble 11A I has partly allowed (116e grounds by limiting the estimation of income to 8°0 of gross receipts vide Para 30 & 39 at Page 191 192 & Page 195 of the paper book respectively

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rattanindia Wind 2 Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2767/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Before Before Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Bleshri G.S. Pannu Hon’Bleshri G.S. Pannu Shri G.S. Pannu Hon’Blehon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Senior DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate

interest on such funds. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of adopting the rate of 10% per annum and estimation of income by the Assessing Officer, the moot question is as to whether the facts and circumstances of the instant case, justify such an action? Admittedly

M/S Dreamax Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 145(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

contract business and particularly when the contracts were awarded by private parties in remote area. 3.4 Accordingly, there is no justification for estimation of income made by the AO @ 8% of gross contractual receipts. M/s. Dreamax Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur 3.5 The AO considered

Silburn Papers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 3552/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Silburn Papers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Bm-125, West Shalimar Bagh, Ward-23(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aapcs5300R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16Th March, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.1,43,88,769/- As Against Addition Of Rs.1,55,39,870/- Made By The Ao By Directing The Ao To Adopt The Gp Rate Of 25% As Against 30% Taken By Him. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Wholesale Trading In Paper, Paper Board, Corrugated Board, Binding Material & Packing Material, Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 4Th September

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 145(3)

history of the assessee or history of the similarly situated other businessmen has to be considered as a proper and reasonable basis for estimation of income. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajinder Prashad Jain ... current year. The rejection of books of account by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act shall lead to the estimation of income of the assessee based on some reasonable and proper criteria. The relevant observation of the Tribunal at para 14 reads as under

Dynamic Engineers Infratec Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. ACIT Circle-1 Kota, Circle-1 Kota

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 871/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Cit (A). 2. That The Appellant Craves To Add, Delete, Alter & Amend Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 145(3)

additional ground raised by the assessee is decided against the assessee. Ground No. 1 is regarding the addition made by the AO while estimating the income by applying N.P. rate of 6.5% instead of N.P rate declared by the assessed at 5.18%. 3. We have heard ... Engineers Vs. ACIT (supra). 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has applied 6.50% NP rate for estimating the income of the assessee while framing the assessment under section 144 read with section 145(3) of the IT Act. Therefore, the said rate

Dynamic Engineers Infratec Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. ACIT Circle-1 Kota, Circle-1 Kota

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 860/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Cit (A). 2. That The Appellant Craves To Add, Delete, Alter & Amend Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 145(3)

additional ground raised by the assessee is decided against the assessee. Ground No. 1 is regarding the addition made by the AO while estimating the income by applying N.P. rate of 6.5% instead of N.P rate declared by the assessed at 5.18%. 3. We have heard ... Engineers Vs. ACIT (supra). 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has applied 6.50% NP rate for estimating the income of the assessee while framing the assessment under section 144 read with section 145(3) of the IT Act. Therefore, the said rate

Dynamic Engineers Infratec Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. DCIT Circle-2, Kota, Circle-2 Kota

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 859/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Cit (A). 2. That The Appellant Craves To Add, Delete, Alter & Amend Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 145(3)

additional ground raised by the assessee is decided against the assessee. Ground No. 1 is regarding the addition made by the AO while estimating the income by applying N.P. rate of 6.5% instead of N.P rate declared by the assessed at 5.18%. 3. We have heard ... Engineers Vs. ACIT (supra). 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has applied 6.50% NP rate for estimating the income of the assessee while framing the assessment under section 144 read with section 145(3) of the IT Act. Therefore, the said rate

ITO - 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mithalal Bhavarlal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and appeal filed by the assessee for Asst

ITA 3777/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaito-19(2)(3) Vs. Mr. Mithalal Bhavarlal Jain Room No.218, 2Nd Floor Pro.M/S.Aristo Pipe & Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Fittings, Shop No.3 Mumbai-400 007 Ground Floor,86/72 Durgadevi Street Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Girno.Admpj5673P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Mr. Mithalal Bhavarlal Jain Vs. Ito-19(2)(3) Room No.218, 2Nd Floor Pro.M/S.Aristo Pipe & Fittings, Shop No.3 Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Ground Floor,86/72 Mumbai-400 007 Durgadevi Street Mumbai-400 004

down addition to 12.50% gross profit on total alleged bogus purchase. Although, both authorities have taken different method and rate of profit for estimation of income from alleged bogus purchase, but no one could support said rate of gross profit with necessary evidences or any comparable cases. In this case

Sauqul Islam, North Lakhimpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 235/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.235/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri T. Hunar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 44A

prescribed limit for audit of one crore but not audited and assessee estimated the net profit lower than 8%, therefore, the assessee’s estimation of income on the turnover was not accepted by assessing officer and assessee was asked to show cause that why the net profit shall ... accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant as required by the provisions of section 44AB of the Act, therefore, the assessee’s estimation of income lower than 8% was not acceptable. Hence, in the absence of audited accounts, the net profit of the assessee was therefore estimated by assessing officer

ITO Ward 1(4), Kalyan vs. M/S Sumangala Machineries, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1300/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shris. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1300 & 1301/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Bhera Ram, DR byFor Respondent: None
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. Roles (Mad), it was held that the levy of penalty was based on the estimation of income. There cannot be any imposition of penalty based on estimation of income. In Naresh Chand Agarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax (All):Penalty under section

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Mohd. Gulzar, Delhi

ITA 3329/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mohd. Gulzar, Vs. Ito, T-444, Gali Pahar Wali, Ward – 63(3), Ahata Kidara, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110 002 Delhi – 110 006 Pan No. Agupg 8688 A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Vs. Mohd. Gulzar, Ward – 63(3), T-444, Gali Pahar Wali, New Delhi – 110 002 Ahata Kidara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110 006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Shri Sumir Chandani, Adv. Respondent By Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2016 Of The Commissioner

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Appeal No.3329/Del/2016 reads as under: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in reducing the estimation of income from 2% of the total sales to 1% of total sales i.e. from Rs.3,30,45,676/- to Rs.1,65,22,880/- ignoring ... shown by the assessee cannot be relied upon. He, therefore rejected the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act and thereafter estimated the income of the Assessee at 2% of the sales which worked out to Rs.3,30,45,676/- and considered it to be the income

Mohd. Gulzar, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3103/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mohd. Gulzar, Vs. Ito, T-444, Gali Pahar Wali, Ward – 63(3), Ahata Kidara, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110 002 Delhi – 110 006 Pan No. Agupg 8688 A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Vs. Mohd. Gulzar, Ward – 63(3), T-444, Gali Pahar Wali, New Delhi – 110 002 Ahata Kidara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110 006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Shri Sumir Chandani, Adv. Respondent By Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2016 Of The Commissioner

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Appeal No.3329/Del/2016 reads as under: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in reducing the estimation of income from 2% of the total sales to 1% of total sales i.e. from Rs.3,30,45,676/- to Rs.1,65,22,880/- ignoring ... shown by the assessee cannot be relied upon. He, therefore rejected the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act and thereafter estimated the income of the Assessee at 2% of the sales which worked out to Rs.3,30,45,676/- and considered it to be the income

Vikrant Jaywant Sankhe, Palghar vs. ITO WD (1), Palghar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7318/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7318/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Raman Shah, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Samatha Mullamuri
Section 143Section 144Section 69C

extent of ₹ 47,500/– and accordingly he has made the addition of ₹ 52,500/–. We noticed that assessee also accepted the estimation of income and submitted that assessee’s parents has incurred the above said expenditure. However they’ve not submitted any new submission before us. However they submitted that

Patel L&T Consortium, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 5285/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5285 & 5286/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri VipulFor Respondent: ShriRahul Raman, DR
Section 143Section 143(2)

Limited (314 ITR 62). The assessing officer after considering the submissions of the assessee rejected the contentions of the assessee and proceeded to estimate the income of the assessee based on percentage of completion method to the extent of Rs. 4,80,11,343/–. 5 I.T.A ... contractual revenue and contractual cost inconsistent with the revised estimate adopted by the assessing officer with respect to assessment year 2008-09, while estimating the income for those 2 years. 10. With regard to method of accounting adopted by the assessee, he submitted that the method adopted by the assessee

Sabre Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (Earlier Known As M/S.Abacus International Pte Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4968/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4968/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Sabre Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. (Earlier Known As M/S Abacus International Pte Ltd.), Abacus Plaza, 3 Tampines Central I, 117, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard बिधम/ # 08-01 Singapore 529540 Estate, Mumbai 400 038. Vs. C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp India Bulls Financial Centre Tower 3, 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (W),Mumbai-400 013. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabca6590M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari, D.R
Section 143(3)

Rules, 1962 as the income of the assessee was upheld. Accordingly, the DRP in the backdrop of its aforesaid observations upheld the estimation of income of the PE of the assessee by the A.O. 11. The DRP adverting to the objection of the assessee as regards the working

DCIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Della Technica Interior Design Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1217/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’ Ble Shri G. Manjunathadcit-6(2)(1) Vs. M/S Della Technica Interior Room No.504 Design Pvt.Ltd Aaykar Bhawan Rati Villa, Ground Floor M.K.Road Motibal Street Mumbai-400 020 Opp. Bhatia Hospital Tardeo, Sion(W) Mumbai-400 007 Pan/Gir No.Aabcd2765K (Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Forum Mehta, Ar Revenue By Ms. Samatha Mullamudi, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

scaled down addition to 8% profit on alleged bogus purchases. Although, both authorities have taken different rate of profit for estimation of income from alleged bogus purchase, but no one could support said rate of gross profit with necessary evidences or any comparable cases. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hindupur vs. M.K.Maruthi Ram, Anantapur

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

ITA 1450/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Karanam Maruthiram Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mulakaledu, Kirikera, Ward-2, Hindupur Mandal, Hindupur – 515201. Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh – 515211. Pan: Abipm 9315 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)

case of the appellant that there was no agreement on the estimate made". It is not correct. The Appellant had not agreed for estimation of income at 8% as mentioned in the Asst order dt 18-11-2013. The alleged agreement by the assessee was already denied in the Statement

Chintamani'S Nx (Firm), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 18 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1894/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’ Ble Shri G. Manjunathachintamani’S Nx (Firm) Vs. Acit,Circle-18(2) 2 & 3, Radhe Gopal Indl. Piramal Chambers Estate Lalbaug Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai-400 012 Dadar(W) Mumbai-400 028

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

made 25% profit additions, which has been upheld by the ld. Ld.CIT(A). Although, both authorities have taken 25% rate of profit for estimation of income from alleged bogus purchase, but no one could support said rate of gross profit with necessary evidences or any comparable cases. In this case

Hariram R. Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 7481/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’ Ble Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

addition of 15% profit, which has been upheld by the ld. Ld.CIT(A). Although, both authorities have taken 15% rate of profit for estimation of income from alleged bogus purchase, but no one cases. Therefore, considering facts and circumstances of this case and consistent with view taken