Which cases are most cited on Section 44A?

Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT (37 ITR 242) — 31 citing judgments; CIT v. PKN (60 ITR 65) — 23 citing judgments; Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India (10 SCC 531) — 5 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 44A?

BharatTax indexes 34 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 44A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 44A of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 44A of the Income Tax Act?

Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT (37 ITR 242) is the decision most relied on for Section 44A, cited in 31 judgments. An isolated transaction, even if not part of the assessee's regular business, can be considered an adventure in the nature of trade if it bears clear indicia of trade. The fact that a transaction is not in the ordinary course of business does not change its character.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.50

Section 44A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 50 (Special provision in case of trade, profession or similar association) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 50 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 44A is Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT (37 ITR 242), cited in 31 of the 34 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44A

Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT

37 ITR 242 · 1959 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An isolated transaction, even if not part of the assessee's regular business, can be considered an adventure in the nature of trade if it bears clear indicia of trade. The fact that a transaction is not in the ordinary course of business does not change its character.

CIT v. PKN

60 ITR 65 · 1966 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A purchase made without the intention to resell, where a resale occurs due to changed circumstances, is considered a realization of capital and does not make the transaction a business venture. However, if a purchase is made with the intention to resell, the nature of the venture (capital account or trade) depends on the assessee's conduct and case circumstances.

Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India

10 SCC 531 · 2023 · Reported

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 44A

Srinivasan Chandrasekara Chandilya, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 1480/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1478, 1479, 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486 & 1487/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 Srinivasan Chandrasekara Chandilya Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, K.V.Ranganathan & Co., Non-Corporate Circle-7(1), No.113/574, Ii Floor, Congress Chennai. Building, Tenampet, Chennai [Pan: Aaupc3096J]

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr.Samuel Pitta, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Srinivasan Chandrasekara Chandilya, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 1479/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr.Samuel Pitta, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Srinivasan Chandrasekara Chandilya, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 1478/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr.Samuel Pitta, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Iyergopal Ashokkumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO-Che-W-(61)(11), Coimbatoe

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

ITA 182/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.182/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Iyergopal Ashokkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 658, P.N. Palayam Road, Puliyakulam, Che-W-61(11), Coimbatore 641 045. Coimbatore. [Pan:Ahqpa2689G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (National Faceless Appeal Centre) [Nfac], Delhi Dated 14.12.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Two Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Against Which, The Ld. Dr Has Not 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 4Section 44A

Aspee Distributors Association, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3520/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleaspee Distributors Ito 30(1)(1) बनाम/ Association, C-13, R.No. 502, Vs. Post Box 7602, Aspee Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, House, Bj Patel Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Mumbai – Mumbai 400064 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacaa6379F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 44A

ITO 3 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Air Cargo Agents Association of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5052/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 10Section 44A

All India Rubber Industries Association, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (E)1(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 247/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 23Section 4Section 44A

All India Rubber Industries Association, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) II(2), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3994/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 23Section 4Section 44A

All India Rubber Industries Association, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1368/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 23Section 4Section 44A

Shri.Nasir Pasha, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2306/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)

Section 44A

M/S Maa Chinnamasta Traders, Burdwan vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2), Asansol

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1070/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

Section 144Section 44A

Raman Kumar Malhotra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1609/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 41(1)

ITO 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Air Cargo Agents Associates of India, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7472/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Act Offier-3(1)(1) M/S. The Air Cargo Agencies Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Association Of India बनाम/ Mumbai 40002 28, Nariman Bhavan Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaact1460A

Section 10Section 25Section 44A

Commissioner of Income Tax Patiala vs. Ajay Kumar Singla

ITA/181/2014HC Punjab & Haryana07 Oct 2014

Section 142Section 143Section 194Section 250Section 260Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 44A