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

Madan Lal Jat, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1883/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptamadan Lal Jat Vs. Ito Nitharwalo Ki Dhani, Ward 7(1) Mundli Renwal Jaipur Raj. Jaipur 303603 (Present Address C/O G.S. Stonex, 3/185- Bachamanglam Ring Road Semanur Village Bagur Krishnagiri Tamil Nadu 635108, Jaipur "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Bdqpj 0380 Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing 23.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2026 O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”), Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 31- 10-25. P A G E | 2 Madan Lal Jat 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- 1. The Impugned Order U/S 147 Rws 144 Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2022 As Well As The Notice U/S 147 Rws 144 & Action Or Proceedings U/S 147/144 Are Illegal, Bad In Law, Barred By Limitation, Without Jurisdiction, Without Approval/Satisfaction From The Proper Or Competent Authority, In Valid Exparty Order In Gross Breach Of The Law & Against The Principle Of Natural Justice & Various Other Reasons Or & Further Contrary To The Real Facts Of The Case Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Aarti Rawat, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 68Section 80C