← 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 Valsons Metal, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2417/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 2417/Mum/2019 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) M/S Valsons Metal The Income Tax Officer 110, 1/19/Bharja Bhavan, Kika Ward 19(3)(5), Mumbai बनाम/ Street Gulalwadi, Mumbai-400 Vs. 004 (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaefv3006B अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Akhtar Ansari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.06.2020 आदेश / O R D E R मिंजूनाथ जी, लेखा दस्य/ Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 Mumbai, Dated 28.02.2019 & It Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Under Section 143 Sub Section 3 R W S 147 Of Valsons Metal; Ay 09-10 Income Tax Act Which Is Passed Against The Principal Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ansari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 69C

made 12.50% additions, which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Although, both authorities have taken uniform 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. Further, the ITAT

Ganpat Ghevarchand Mutha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1647/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 1647/Mum/2019 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) Shri Ganpat Ghevarchand The Income Tax Officer Mutha Ward 19(1)(3) बनाम/ 59-A, Ardeshar Dady Street, Mumbai Near Alankar Cinema, Opp Vs. Sundar Transport, Mumbai (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aiupm0210G अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Akhtar Ansari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.06.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 [In Short Cit(A)], Mumbai, Dated 19.09.2018 & It Pertains To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Assessing Officer’S Action Of Reopening Of The Ita No..1647/Mum/2019 Shri Ganpat Ghevarchand Mutha; Ay 10-11 Completed Assessment Under Section 147 Of The It Act 1961 & The Reason Assigned For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Provision Of Income Tax Act & Rules Made There Under.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

been affirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on total alleged bogus purchase. Although, both authorities have taken uniform 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. Further, the rate

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. M/S. K V R Estates, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 538/VIZ/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.538/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Kvr Estates Circle-3(1) Flat No.Gf-5, Visakhapatnam Sri Venkateswara Royal Ring Road, Srinivas Nagar Vizianagaram [Pan : Aapfk2868M] (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Cross Objection No.150/Viz/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.538/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S Kvr Estates Vs Dy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Gf-5, Income Tax Sri Venkateswara Royal Circle-3(1) Ring Road, Srinivas Nagar Visakhapatnam Vizianagaram [Pan : Aapfk2868M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan Cit, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar : सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2020

For Respondent: Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan

Rs.3,13,94,622/- was added back to the income. The entire addition was made on facts and there is no case for estimation of income in this case. The Ld.DR further submitted that while recomputing the closing work in progress, the AO followed the Accounting standards, therefore, argued that ... details with regard to the actual expenditure incurred on sold plots and unsold plots, there is no option except to resort for estimation of income and arrive at the value of closing stock. We, find from the order of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A), against the sale price

Mr. Mukesh Gaglani, Mumbai vs. ITO-33(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1839/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील िं./ Ita Nos. 1839 & 1840/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2005-06) Mukesh K. Gaglani The Income Tax Officer, Pan No.Aefpg7132G Ward-33(2)(3), Manish K. Gaglani बिाम/ Pan No.Aedpg7133H 202-E, Shubh Shanti Complex, Vs. M.G. Road, Dahanukarwadi, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15.06.2020 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DR
Section 143

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. The first common issue in these appeals of assessee is as regards to estimation of income by CIT(A) at 3% as against estimated by Assessing Officer as 5% of the credit entries in the bank account of the assessee, the assessee ... estimated the income at 1%. For this, both the assessee has raised the following ground No.1:- “ITA No.1839/Mum/2019 1. The Appellant prays to delete the excess addition of 2% estimated by the Hon. CIT Appeals over and above declared by the appellant without any contrary material on record