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

Panna Lal Prajapati, Mirzapur vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Mirzapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2011-12 Shri Panna Lal Prajapati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhudev Dubey, Kai Gali, Ward-3(2), Mirzapur Bhatwa Ki Pokhari, Mirzapur Pan:Azeps1524N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl Cit(A)-Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 27.03.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made On Income Of The Rs. 12,73,650/- By Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed U/S 143 (3)/147 Of The I.T. Act Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter The Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act As Initiated On The Allegation That Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit Amounting To Rs.30,63,500/- In Bank Account Which Remain Unexplained Is Not Correct Since The Cash Deposit Are From Disclosed Sources Hence The Satisfaction Recorded Is Not Correct & There Was No Independent Application Of Mind By The Assessing Officer Before Initiating Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Learned Cit Appeal Was Not Correct In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessee & The Order Not Speaking Order In The Eye Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

Satbir Singh Punia, Rohtak vs. ITO Ward-3, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.138/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2015-16) Satbir Singh Punia, H. No. 636/21, Main Azadgarh Road, Near Hafed Chowk, Rohtak, Haryana 124001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Awhpp-7447-F बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Aaykar Bhawan, Rohtak 124001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Naveen Kumar Goyal, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 27.12.2023, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri Naveen Kumar Goyal, Appearing On Behalf Of Assessee Submits That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Declaring Business Income Of Rs. 5,83,150/- U/S. 44Ad Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) & Agricultural Income Of Rs.37,15,850/-. The Assessee Has Agricultural Income From Cultivation Of His Own Land, As Well As The Land Taken On Batai/Theka (Lease). To Substantiate Agricultural Income, The Assessee Placed On Record

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar Goyal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Patna vs. ITO, 6(2), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.616/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Kr. Pandey….………….. ……..……………………....Appellant S. K. Enclave Professor Colony, Near Ojha Lodge, Shivpuri, Patna, Bihar-800023. [Pan: Alupp8547J] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna……. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ajay Kr. Shukla, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 23, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 63 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notice Of Hearing, Therefore, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal With The Help Of Ld. Dr & Also Considering The Material Available On Record.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 68