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

M/S Pillapakkam Bahugudumbi Mukunthan, Chengalpet vs. Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Ward-22(2), Chennai

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

ITA 290/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.290/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Pillapakkam Bahugudumbi Mukunthan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 19, Rajaji Street, Chengalpet, Non Corporate Ward 22(2), Kancheepuram 603 001. Tambaram, Chennai. [Pan:Crvpm0640J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2023 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 30.07.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Deriving Income By Way Of Sale Of Plots & Obtained Pan On 27.12.2015. He Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 25.09.2015 For The First Time Admitting Returned Income Of ₹.20,19,207/-.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

Sri Santhosh Damodar Naik, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -2(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1157/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Santosh Damodar Naik, Vs. Acit, Truck Owner, Near Vishwadarshani Central Circle – 2(4), Sch Balgimane Tq Yellapur, Bengaluru. Uttara Kannada – 581 359. Pan : Amnpn 9965 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Cuddapah Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.10.2022 Of Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee An Individual Is Engaged In The Business Of Supplying Of Building Materials. There Was A Search & Seizure Operation Carried Out Under Section 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’), In The Case Of One Mr. Muniraju On 09.10.2016. In The Course Of Search, Documents Were Seized. The Residence Of The Assessee Was Also Covered By The Warrant Of Authorization Of Search Though The Search Was In The Case Of Muniraju. Documents Were Seized From The Residence Of The Assessee. Since The Documents Had A Bearing On The Determination Of The Total Income Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014-15, Notice Under Section 153C Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Cuddapah Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 153CSection 44A

Urmila Pradhan, Jajpur vs. PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 64/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Urmila Pradhan, At: Bada Urmila Pradhan, At: Bada Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Chapoi, Chapoi, Pol Pol Arthanga, Arthanga, Kabirpur, Jajpur Kabirpur, Jajpur Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Cpkpp 8640A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By :S/ Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, Ars D.Parida/C.Parida, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12 /01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01 /01/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr. Cit Passed U/S.263 Of The Act Passed U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 22.3.2022 In , Dated 22.3.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021 Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041250337(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. S/Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S/Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S/Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/ Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 263Section 44ASection 69A