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

Indrajit Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 51(3), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1104/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1104/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Indrajit Roy Vs. Ito, Ward-51(3), Kolkata. 1, Ashok Sen Nagar, Po: Natagarh, Sodepur, Kolkata – 700113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afppr0773R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-15, Kolkata Dated 16.01.2017 Passed In Case No.377/Cit(A)-15/15-16/Wd-51(3)/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires At The Outset That The Assessee’S Instant Appeal Suffers From 427 Days’ Delay In Filing. This Taxpayer Has Placed On Record His Condonation Petition That He Has Been Undergoing Disturbed State Of Mind On Account Of His Wife Suffering From Serious Ailments For A Very Long Period. It Is Further Stated That She Required Frequent Hospitalization In Critical Care Which Also Had An Adverse Impact On His Day To Day Business Affairs. Learned Counsel Thereafter Invited Our Attention To Rectification Proceedings/Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer On 28.04.2017 Followed By His Order To This Effect Computing A Fresh Demand 29.06.2017. Mr. Tiwari Pleads That All The Above Factors Coupled With The Non-Compliance Of Various Procedural Formalities In Compilation Of Records Make It Clear That The

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A