Section 44ADA of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.58

Section 44ADA 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 44ADA is Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775 2. Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (60 ITD 560), cited in 14 of the 98 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44ADA

Judgments on Section 44ADA

Bharat Jain, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi vs. AO/ADIT-CPC Bengaluru, Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4986/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbharat Jain, Vs. Adit – Cpc, Flat No.133, Pocket G, Sfs Flats, Bengaluru. Maharaja Agarsen Marg, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi – 110 076. (Pan : Aaapj4180E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate Shri Shivam Jain, Advocate Shri Rajiv Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2024 Date Of Order : 06.08.2024 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.08.2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee For The Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Status Of 2 The Assessee Was Clearly Mentioned As Non-Resident As Residential Status Of The Assessee In Itr 3 Filed On 16.12.2020 With The Acknowledgement No.826193800161220. With The Above Facts On Record, He Submitted That The Authorities Below Proceeded To Apply The Provisions Of Section 44Ada Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For The Reason That Assessee Has Not Maintained Proper Books Of Account For Carrying On The Professional Activities, Therefore, They Applied The Presumptive Tax @ 50%. He Submitted That Provisions Of Section 44Ada Are Not Applicable To The Non-Resident & It Was Wrongly Applied In Assessee’S Case. He Further Submitted That The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal By Observing As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 30Section 44A

Vijay Singh, Allahabad vs. ITO- 1(5), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 113/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Vijay Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(5), 9R/1, Mln Road, Church Lane, Allahabad Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Azeps1524N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 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)-5, Mumbai Dated 14.05.2014, Wherein The Ld. Addl Cit(A), Has Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Framed U/S 144 Of The Act By Order Dated 13.11.2019 On Income Of Rs.6,45,000/- Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Both The Two Lower Authorities Failed To Appreciate The Facts Regarding Cash Deposit In Bank Which Was From Definite Sources Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessee Hence Entire Action Is Bad In Law. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter Addition Of Rs.6,45,000/- U/S 69A Of The Act Is Not Correct When The Cash Deposit In Bank Was From Definite Sources & Was The Explained Money But The Issue Was Not Consider Properly By The Assessing Officer As Well As By Cit Appeal Which Action Is Highly Unjustified.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 44ASection 69A