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

CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi', 141 I.T.R. 67(Bom.), 'Sampat Automobile v. ITO', 96 TTJ(D)368, 'Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT (113 TTJ 178) is the decision most relied on for Section 44AF, cited in 13 judgments. Provisions of Section 68 are not attracted when the assessee does not maintain books of account and there is no corroborative evidence for an addition under Section 68.

Which cases are most cited on Section 44AF?

CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi', 141 I.T.R. 67(Bom.), 'Sampat Automobile v. ITO', 96 TTJ(D)368, 'Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT (113 TTJ 178) — 13 citing judgments; Smt. Renu Agrawal v. Income Tax Officer, 3(3), Mathura (22 Taxmann.com 94) — 8 citing judgments; Smt. Renu Aggarwal v. ITO (358 ITR 483) — 6 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 44AF?

BharatTax indexes 210 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 44AF of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 44AF of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 44AF is CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi', 141 I.T.R. 67(Bom.), 'Sampat Automobile v. ITO', 96 TTJ(D)368, 'Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT (113 TTJ 178), cited in 13 of the 210 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44AF

CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi', 141 I.T.R. 67(Bom.), 'Sampat Automobile v. ITO', 96 TTJ(D)368, 'Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT

113 TTJ 178 · 2008 · ITAT

citing judgments

Provisions of Section 68 are not attracted when the assessee does not maintain books of account and there is no corroborative evidence for an addition under Section 68.

Smt. Renu Agrawal v. Income Tax Officer, 3(3), Mathura

22 Taxmann.com 94 · 2012 · ITAT

citing judgments

Smt. Renu Aggarwal v. ITO

358 ITR 483 · Reported

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 44AF

Naresh Kumar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Patiala

Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue was allowed and the addition made

ITA/382/2015HC Punjab & Haryana27 Sept 2016

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260ASection 29Section 44A

M/S Aman Gold Plaza, Puttur vs. ITO, Puttur

In the result, the appeal of the asseessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavanm/S Aman Gold Plaza, J.M. Building Main Road, Puttur – 574201. . Assessee Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur. . Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Vanaja M.R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri DK Jha, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 44A

Sh. Jitender Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6198/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: SH. DHARMENDER KUMAR, CAFor Respondent: NONE

Section 143(3)Section 441Section 44A

ITO 23(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Mukund Kishen Adak, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4766/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4557/Mum/2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

Section 143(2)Section 268ASection 44ASection 69

Mukund K Adak, Mumbai vs. I.T.O.23(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4557/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4557/Mum/2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

Section 143(2)Section 268ASection 44ASection 69

Mr. Satender Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3496/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Narvinder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 30Section 44ASection 80C

ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Asahi Infrastructuire & Projects Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5760/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharthe Acit, Cir. 6(1), Mumbai. ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri A.RamachandranFor Respondent: Shri Anil Thakrar

Section 133(6)Section 144

Jignesh Girishbhai Bengari, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(2), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 4357/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jignesh Girishbhai Office Of The Ito 22(1)(2), Tower No.6, 4Th Floor, Bengari, 101, Tanishq Anthia, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Chitranjan Nagar, Complex, Rajawadi, Ghatkopar (E), Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Affpb1952C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Virendra Jariwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Prakash Pathade, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Virendra Jariwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Pathade, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44Section 44A

Sh. Hansraj S/O Sh. Ishria, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed accordingly

ITA 1139/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:Asstt. Yr: 2009-10 Hansraj S/0 Sh. Ishria, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, C/0 M/S Bhati Wadhwa & Co.,Ca, Ward -11(3), Faridabad. 5N/1A, First Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Camp Office, B.K. Chowk Nit, Faridabad. Pan: Agbpr 4470 N ( Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Bansal CA &For Respondent: Smt. Ritu Sharma Sr. DR

Section 144Section 234Section 44A

Jignesh Girish Bengari, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)-2, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 5928/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5928/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07) बनधम/ Jignesh Girish Bengari Income Tax Officer 22(1)(2), 17 Usha Kiran,4Th Floor, 33, Tower No.6, Vs. Plot Npo.136, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Geradia Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Vashi, Mumbai-400077 Navi Mumbai-400703 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Affpb1952C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से/Appellant By : Shri V H Jariwala प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Alok Singh सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.4.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.5.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.5.2010 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-33, Mumbai & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Present Appeal Before Us Was Recalled Vide Order Dated 22.3.2016 Passed In Ma No.135/Mum/2015 By The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal As The Appeal Was Dismissed Ex-Parte Vide Order Dated 3.10.2011. Now, This Appeal Is Being Disposed Off After Hearing Both The Parties. 2.1. The Only Issue Involved & Challenged In The Grounds Of Appeals Relates To Confirmation Of Additions Of Rs. 9,27,000/- By Cit(A) As Made By The Ao For The Cash Deposited Into The Bank Account During The Year.

For Appellant: Shri V H JariwalaFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh

Section 131Section 144Section 44A