Section 44AE of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.58

Section 44AE 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 44AE is Goodyear (I) Ltd. v. ITO (73 ITD 189), cited in 27 of the 159 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44AE

Goodyear (I) Ltd. v. ITO
73 ITD 189 · 2000 · ITAT
27
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
23
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is imposed only when there is a deliberate default and not a mere mistake. The furnishing of inaccurate particulars must be a deliberate attempt to evade tax, not just a mistake.

DCIT v. Surface Finishing Equipment
81 TTJ 448 · 2003 · ITAT
23
citing judgments

Non-compliance with notices issued under section 133(6) alone is not a sufficient basis to deny the genuineness of expenditure incurred by a company. The assessee's obligation extends to providing correct names and addresses of parties, not ensuring their response.

(India) Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
254 ITR 673 · 2002 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Ad hoc additions to income are not legally sustainable. Mere non-compliance with notices under section 133(6) does not invalidate genuine expenditure. Losses incidental to business should be allowed as deductions in the year of discovery.

(i) CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
77 Taxmann.com 275 · 2017 · ITAT
11
citing judgments

The recording of purchase transactions and subsequent export of goods in the books of accounts can prove the genuineness and veracity of such purchase transactions.

IT vs. Kerala Transport Co. (1994) 51 ITD (Coch) 405 (iv)Om Prakash Joshi v. ITO
102 TTJ 882 · 2006 · ITAT
10
citing judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harsh D Mehta
251 Taxmann 346 · 2017 · High Court
9
citing judgments
(i) CIT vs Jalaram Oil Mills (2001) 171 CTR (GUj) 426 (ii) Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT
135 ITR 652 · 1982 · High Court
8
citing judgments
ITO v. Shantilal Chuni-lal & Co.
45 ITD 581 · 1993 · ITAT
7
citing judgments
ITO v. Bindra Ban Bansi Lal
78 ITD 228 · 2001 · ITAT
6
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 44AE

Thottiapatti Muthusamy Mohan, Namakkal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1327/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1327/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thottiapatti Muthusamy Mohan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 629, Salem Road, Circle 1, Namakkal 637 001. Namakkal. [Pan:Aldpm2174M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-13, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Exparte Order In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 253(6)

Dipakkumar Jagdishchandra Maheta, Chhotaudepur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), (Previously ITO, Ward-3(1)(3)), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1331/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Dipakkumar Jagdishchandra Maheta The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Holi Chakla Vs. Vadodara. Alipura Char Rasta Bodeli,Chhotaudepur Gujarat. Pan : Ahtpm 6296 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shhri Jigar Adhyaru, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 15.05.2024, Confirming The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1)(3), Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 68 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] In Respect Of The Opening Capital Balance As On 01.04.2014 Amounting To Rs.96,10,209/–, In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015–16. 2. Facts Of The Case

For Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68