Which cases are most cited on Section 44AE?

Goodyear (I) Ltd. v. ITO (73 ITD 189) — 27 citing judgments; CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises (322 ITR 80) — 23 citing judgments; DCIT v. Surface Finishing Equipment (81 TTJ 448) — 23 citing judgments; (India) Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (254 ITR 673) — 11 citing judgments; (i) CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (77 Taxmann.com 275) — 11 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 44AE?

BharatTax indexes 53 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 44AE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 44AE of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 44AE of the Income Tax Act?

Goodyear (I) Ltd. v. ITO (73 ITD 189) is the decision most relied on for Section 44AE, cited in 27 judgments. Expenditure incurred for the transfer of the use of licenses, without acquiring ownership rights or an enduring benefit, constitutes revenue expenditure. Such payments are allowable as a deduction if they are directly relatable to services in the revenue field.

The decision most relied on for Section 44AE is Goodyear (I) Ltd. v. ITO (73 ITD 189), cited in 27 of the 53 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44AE

Goodyear (I) Ltd. v. ITO

73 ITD 189 · 2000 · ITAT

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for the transfer of the use of licenses, without acquiring ownership rights or an enduring benefit, constitutes revenue expenditure. Such payments are allowable as a deduction if they are directly relatable to services in the revenue field.

CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises

322 ITR 80 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

DCIT v. Surface Finishing Equipment

81 TTJ 448 · 2003 · ITAT

citing judgments

(India) Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

254 ITR 673 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

(i) CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

77 Taxmann.com 275 · 2017 · ITAT

citing judgments

IT vs. Kerala Transport Co. (1994) 51 ITD (Coch) 405 (iv)Om Prakash Joshi v. ITO

102 TTJ 882 · 2006 · ITAT

citing judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harsh D Mehta

251 Taxmann 346 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

(i) CIT vs Jalaram Oil Mills (2001) 171 CTR (GUj) 426 (ii) Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT

135 ITR 652 · 1982 · High Court

citing judgments

ITO v. Shantilal Chuni-lal & Co.

45 ITD 581 · 1993 · ITAT

citing judgments

ITO v. Bindra Ban Bansi Lal

78 ITD 228 · 2001 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 44AE

MIHILAL SEKH,BIRBHUM vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, SURI

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

ITA 1749/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 44ASection 69C

PONGIYANNAN THANGAVEL,TIRUCHENGODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, ERODE, ERODE

ITA 2929/CHNY/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. P. M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 144

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

ITA 755/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 44Section 68Section 69Section 69A

THIRUVENGATAM VINAYAGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2285/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 13.11.2025

Section 142(1)Section 40Section 44ASection 68Section 69

TUFEL,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD 4(4),GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3293/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

GAURAV GUPTA,JALAUN vs. ITO,WARD 2(1)(5), ORAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 44A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. JAIPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT CO PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4990/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2012-13] Assistant Commissioner, Of Jaipur Golden Transport Co. Income Tax, Private Limited, Room No.316A, C.R. Vs 4741, Roshananra Road, Building, I.P Estate, Malkaganj, North Delhi, New New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110007 Pan Aaacj4124B Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Y.K. Mehan, Ca, Shri Dheeraj Kumar, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025

Section 143(3)

D S G ROADLINES PVT LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1162/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Tribunal.

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Monga (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44A

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

ITA 70/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

KULANDAIVEL THAALAMUTHU,NAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, NAMAKKAL

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

ITA 1752/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1752/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kulandaivel Thaalamuthu, The Assistant Commissioner 286/2, 1St Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, S.G. Complex, Circle 1, Thuraiyur Road, Namakkal. Namakkal – 637 001. Pan: Abnpt 2841G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 44A

DCIT CIRCLE 61(1), DELHI vs. SUKHBIR SINGH CHABRA HUF, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.315/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Sukhbir Singh Chabra Huf Circle 61(1), Vs. 6, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. Motia Khan, Delhi. Pan No.Aaahs5683P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 92C

THIRUVENGATAM VINAYAGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2284/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2283 & 2284 /Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13 Thiruvengatamvinayagam, Income Tax Officer, No.2/9, Bye Pass Road, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-10(3), Redhills, Chennai. Chennai-600 052. [Pan:Aagpv1428F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.Hithesh, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Mr.C.P.Solomon, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr.Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Solomon, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40aSection 44A

THIRUVENGATAM VINAYAGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2283/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Solomon, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40aSection 44A

MUKESH SHARMA,JAGANNAT GANJ, BISWAN SITAPUR vs. ITO, SITAPUR

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

ITA 406/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshramukesh Sharma V. Ito 30 Jagannat Ganj, Biswan Sitapur-261201. Sitapur-261201. Pan:Aweps9987J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 144Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 44A

AYYUB MOHAMMAD,NUAPADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHAWANIPATNA WARD, BHAWANIPATNA

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

ITA 385/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.385/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Ayyub Mohammad Vs Ito, Bhawanipatna Ward, Khariarroad, Ward No:- 18,, Bhawanipatna Nuapada, 766104 Pan No. : Azepm 3628 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Braja Bandhu Bihari, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Braja Bandhu Bihari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

ANWAR ISMAIL AGWAN ,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2518/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalanwar Ismail Agwan, Noor Mohammad Chawl, Nr. Ajit Galss Oshiwara, S.V. Road, Jogeshwari West, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400102 Pan : Acwpa3632N V/S Ito, Ward-24(1)(2) ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

KRISHNAMOORTHY RAVI,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DHARMAPURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1700/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1700/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Krishnamoorthy Ravi, Income Tax Officer, No.35J / I Nickenkottai (Vill), Ward-1, Naickenkottai Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu-636 702, [Pan: Atapr4528H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68