What is the leading case on Section 44ADA of the Income Tax Act?

Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775 2. Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (60 ITD 560) is the decision most relied on for Section 44ADA, cited in 14 judgments. The Assessing Officer must follow proper procedure when acting upon loose sheets or estimates found during a survey or search, as per established case law.

How many judgments are there on Section 44ADA?

BharatTax indexes 98 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 44ADA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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

Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775 2. Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT

60 ITD 560 · 1997 · ITAT

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must follow proper procedure when acting upon loose sheets or estimates found during a survey or search, as per established case law.

Judgments on Section 44ADA

Giriraj Prasad Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Tonk, Tonk

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 200/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24

Pragati Pallavi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 86/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 86/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pragati Pallavi Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Vs Patna Flat No. 4 A/D Radha Kunj Apartment A.N. Path North S.K. Puri Patna - 800013 [Pan: Awhpp6938C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/08/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition For Undisclosed Cash Deposit U/S 69A Of The Act At Rs. 13,50,000/- Deposited During The Demonetization Period. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. Income Of Rs.8,40,280/- Declared In The Return For Assessment Year 2017-18. On The Basis Of The Reason That Cash Of Rs.18,50,000/- Has Been Deposited In The Bank Account Held By The Assessee With Kotak Mahindra Bank During Demonetization Period, Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Followed By Serving Of Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Submitted That The Assessee Holds A Joint Account Her Husband In Kotak Mahindra Bank A/C No.

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Sanjay Kumar Bejwani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed accordingly

ITA 2741/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28Section 37(1)Section 44A

Pawan Raj Goyal, Haryana vs. DCIT Central Circle-17, Delhi

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

ITA 575/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Divyansh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Senior DR

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 154Section 69A

Mathur Ugam and Associates, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-61(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 223/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Mathur Ugam & Associates, Vs Ito, A-1/294, Safdarjung Enclave, Ward-61(2), New Delhi-110092. New Delhi. Pan-Aajfm9097N Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194JSection 250Section 271FSection 44A

K H & Associates, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

ITA 2241/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Shah &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194Section 44A

Shri. Vinod Raghavendra Deshpande, Bagalkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

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

ITA 675/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Preethi Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 44A

Orbit 9 Electronics, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 16/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charym/S.Orbit 9 Electronics, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-6(2), [Pan No. Aabfo6265A] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Deshmukh, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutam, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194JSection 44ASection 44BSection 80H

Anita Seth, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 109/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194JSection 44A

Mr J P C Solutions, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1657/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. J P C Solutions, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.30, 3Rd D Cross, Ward – 7(2)(1), 21St Main, Btm Layout, Ii Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaffj 2214 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balram R. Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghali, Jr. Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghali, Jr. Standing Counsel

Section 139Section 143(1)(a)Section 194JSection 2Section 44ASection 80

Amitabh Verma, Gurgaon vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 2209/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Kumar GortiFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey

Section 144Section 250(6)

M/S. Pvm Assocites, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 8 (4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 3280/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Shri. J. Pavithran Kumar, JCIT

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 44A

Tanuj Shrivastav, Indore vs. DCIT 1 (1), Indore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 902/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2014-15

Section 44A

Sri Arthur Bernard Sebastine Pais, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1683/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2019AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Arthur Bernard Sebastine Pais, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.2C, 214, Hrbr Layout, Income-Tax, 3Rd Block, Cpc, Bengaluru – 560 084. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaqpp 2199 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Lalitha B, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghali, Advocate Standing Counsel To Department Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Lalitha B, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghali, Advocate

Section 139Section 143(1)(a)Section 194JSection 2Section 44ASection 80

Nusrat Banka, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 1299/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dr. Nusrat Banka Income Tax Officer C/O. Sh. Amar Mittal Vs Ward – 61 (5) D-815, 3Rd Floor, Ratan Mani, New Delhi New Friend’S Colony, New Delhi-110065 Pan No.Alypb4979L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Nem Singh, Advocate Respondent By Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: /08/2019

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 271F