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

Gautam Sadana, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Range-4(5), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 497/LKW/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Gautam Sadana V. Income Tax Officer B-40, B Block Range 4 (5) Rajaji Puram Lucknow Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Cqtps2915P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Dileep Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Pratibha Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 07 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 09 2026 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Totaling To Rs.22,92,300/- In His Saving Bank Account No.2424000100707102 Maintained With Punjab National Bank. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To The Assessee. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 04.11.2019 Declaring

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pratibha Singh, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69Section 69A