← 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

ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Nagib Hussainy Hussain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 570/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaबनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ito 17(2)(4) Shri Nagib Husainy R.No. 123B, 1St Floor, Hussain, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Flat No. 8, 2Nd Floor, Md Churchgate, Mumbai. Bldg, 56, Nathlal Parekh Marg, Wood House Road, Coloba, Mumbai – 400005. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaph0986J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant Shri Sourabh Deshpande, Dr By : ""यथ" क" ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / / / / Date Of 03/02/2020 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 14/02 /2020 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri G. Manjunatha- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai, Dated 20/11/2018 & It Pertains To The A.Y 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

scaled down addition to 15% gross profit on total alleged bogus purchase. 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 facts

ITO-17(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mr. Akshay Ramprasad Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 558/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaबनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ito 17(1)(1) Mr. Akshay Ramprasad R.No. 115, 1St Floor, Agarwal, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 41, Santam Apartment, 93, Churchgate, Mumbai. Cufee Parade, Mumbai. Pin - 400 005. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aevpa1819G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant Shri Sourabh Deshpande, Dr By : ""यथ" क" ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / / / / Date Of 03/02/2020 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 14/02/2020 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri G. Manjunatha- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-55, Mumbai, Dated 19/11/2018 & It Pertains To The A.Y 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

scaled down addition to 8% gross profit on total alleged bogus purchase. 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 558/Mum/2019. Akshay Ramprasad Agarwal. gross profit with necessary evidences or any comparable cases

Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajesh M. Chauhan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 531/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaबनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ito 19(3)(1) Shri. Rajesh M. Chauhan Matru Mandir, Room C/O Dodhia Industries, Vs. No. 202, Tardeo Road, 403, Dharam Palace, Mumbai. National Park, Shantivan, Pin – 400 007. Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400 066. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepc3596K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant Shri Sourabh Deshpande, Dr By : ""यथ" क" ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / / / / Date Of 03/02/2020 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 14/02/2020 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri G. Manjunatha- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-30, Mumbai, Dated 12/10/2018 & It Pertains To The A.Y 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 531

scaled down addition to 12.50% gross profit on total alleged bogus purchase. 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 facts

ITO, 19(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sunita Ankush Kurale, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 529/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaबनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ito 19(3)(4) Smt. Sunita Ankush Matru Mandir, Room Kurale, Vs. No. 210, Tardeo Road, Sai, Flat No. 4A, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai. Building No. 26, Durgadevi Pin – 400 007. Street Opp Durgadevi Temple, Kumbhawada. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Anwpk6615J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant Shri Sourabh Deshpande, Dr By : ""यथ" क" ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / / / / Date Of 03/02/2020 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 14 /02/2020 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri G. Manjunatha- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-30, Mumbai, Dated 03/10/2018 & It Pertains To The A.Y 2009-10. 529/Mum/2019. Sunita Ankush Kurale. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

scaled down addition to 12.50% gross profit on total alleged bogus purchase. 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 facts