Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.58

Section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 58 (Special provision for computing profits and gains of business or profession on presumptive basis in case of certain residents) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 58 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 44AD is Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT (216 Taxmann 171), cited in 325 of the 2,222 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44AD

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT
216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court
325
citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

Glass Lines Equipments Company Ltd. v. CIT
253 ITR 454 · 2002 · High Court
150
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot selectively accept parts of a statement or seized evidence that are favourable to the revenue while rejecting other parts favourable to the assessee without proper investigation; the evidence must be considered as a whole. Additions cannot be made based on mere presumptions or surmises without further inquiry.

Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT
35 ITR 594 · 1959 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

A transaction is considered an adventure in the nature of trade, constituting business income, if there is a pre-determination to sell an asset at a profit. Conduct prior to purchase, as well as subsequent improvements, are relevant in determining the character of the transaction.

CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd.
105 ITR 212 · 1976 · Supreme Court
85
citing judgments
CIT v. K. S. M Guruswamy Nadar and Sons.
149 ITR 127 · 1984 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Where separate additions are made for suppressed profit and unexplained cash credits under section 68, the assessee can explain that the suppressed profit accounts for the cash credit, allowing for telescoping of additions to prevent double taxation.

(CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu
29 ITR 529 · 1956 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus to establish any claim for exemption, including agricultural income, by providing proper evidence and materials. The assessing officer is not primarily burdened with proving the assessee's claims.

Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT
42 ITR 179 · 1961 · Supreme Court
54
citing judgments

A transaction, even if appearing to be in the capital field or recorded as such, can constitute an 'adventure in the nature of trade,' leading to taxable income from business rather than capital gains.

CIT v. Raj Pal Bhatia
333 ITR 315 · 2011 · High Court
54
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search operation is not considered "books of account," "documents," or "assets found or seized" for the purpose of initiating search assessments under Chapter XIVB (e.g., Section 158BD or 153C). Such a statement is created during the search and cannot solely form the basis for assessment without other incriminating material found.

Pr. CIT v. Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd.
397 ITR 182 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement or confession recorded during a search operation. Such additions require corroborating incriminating material or other independent evidence to be permissible.

Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT
77 ITR 253 · 1970 · Supreme Court
49
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarifies the distinction between income chargeable as capital gains and income taxable as business profits, guiding the assessment of whether a transaction constitutes a transfer of a capital asset or is in the nature of trade.

Judgments on Section 44AD

Skate Trade & Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5549/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5549/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Skate Trade & Agencies P. बिधम/ Ito Wd 1(2) (3) Ltd. 302, Dev Kripa Bldg. 28 Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd. Raichur Street, Mumbai Pin: 400020 Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs3616C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Devdatta Mainkar Revenue By: Shri. Dr. A.K. Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.09.2015 For The A.Y.2011-12 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”]. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cita(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 28,75,185 To The Total Income Solely On The Basis Of Tax Deducted At Source By One Party Wrongly & Reflected In Air Information. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Skate Trade & Agencies P. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Devdatta MainkarFor Respondent: Shri. Dr. A.K. Nayak
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 2(22)Section 203ASection 44A

Dum Dum Construction (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 292/KOL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.292/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) Dum Dum Construction (P) Vs. Ito Ward-12(2), Kolkata Limited, P-7 Chowringhee Square, 3Rd Block-B, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kolkata- Madhubani Apartment, 258 700030 M.C.Garden Road, Kolkata-700030 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd 1720 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I. Banerjee, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Sinha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2006-2007, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.269/Xii/12(2)/08-09, Dated 06.12.2012, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 15.12.2008. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is A Builder & During The Previous Year Corresponding To The Assessment Year 2006-07, Shown Its Income To Have Derived From Sale Of Flats. The Assessee Had Claimed Liabilities Of Rs.2,86,82,805/- As On 31.03.2006 On Account Of Advance From Customer. During The Assessment Proceedings, Assessee Filed A List Of Twenty Parties To Whom The Assessee Company Had 2 Dum Dum Construction (P) Ltd. Shown Total Liability Of Rs.19,32,000/- As On 31.03.2006. The Ao Issued

For Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Sinha, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143