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

Ms. Farhana Khanam, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3215/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed Sr. DR

Section 44ASection 69

M/S G J Pawar & Sons, Hubballi vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2), Hubballi

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

ITA 1626/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ak Garodia & Ita No.1626/Bang/2017 - Asst. Year – 2009-10 Ita No.1627/Bang/2017 - Asst. Year – 2011-12 Ita No.1628/Bang/2017 - Asst. Year – 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tulajappa Kalburgi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 44ASection 69C

Shri Biren Ashokbhai Patel, Mehsana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana

ITA 335/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri S.S. Godara)

For Appellant: Smt. Grishma Soni, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Prajna Paramita, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

Sri Lakshmi Kanta Kesh, Durgapur vs. ITO, WD-1(3), Durgapur

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

ITA 13/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 13/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Lakshmi Kanta Kesh -Vs- Ito, Ward-1(3), Durgapur [Pan: Aespk 8143 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri U.Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 44A

Kumari Durga Ganpariwaru, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1428/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 250

Najmuddin Turab Shaiwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes which make other grounds infructuous

ITA 2736/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2736/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Najmuddin Turab Shaiwala Income Tax Officer 21,Safavi Church Road Ward 20(2)(3) बनाम/ Marol,Andheri(East) Room No.411, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers Mumbai-400 059 Vs. Lalbaugh, Parel Mumbai -400 012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabps-3935-R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: V.Jenardhanan, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 69Section 69C

Sushil Kumar, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 4024/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(c)Section 44A

Mohd Anas Qureshi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3485/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2011-12 Mohd Anas Qureshi Vs. Ito, 19, Navyug Market, Ward-1(4) Second Floor, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan-Aaepq0492K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Raj Kumar Agarwal, Fca Respondent By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/10/2017 Order Per B.P. Jain, A.M. This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Gaziabad, Vide Order Dated 19.02.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-13. The Assessee Has Filed The Revised & Concise Grounds Of Appeal Which Are As Under:- The Order Passed By The Ao & The Cit(Appeal) Are In Bad In Law 1. & Against The Cannon The Taxation. The Ao & The Cit(A) Have Ignored Of Law & Interpreted Wrongly. 2. The Ao & The Cit(A) Have Vitiated By The Fact, Finding & Reached 3. On Assessment Only On The Presumption & Assumptions & Not Based On Any Relevant Evidences Or Circumstances. It Is True As Observed By The Ao That Accountant Is Fabricating & 4. Trying To Hike The Sales Shown In Itr. The Explanation On 26.11.2012 Was Offered That Accounts Are Not Kept. 2

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 44Section 44ASection 68

Piyush Kanti Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-33(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 878/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2017AY 2008-2009

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, ACIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44A

Raj Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1527/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K.Pandaasstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. V.K.Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 44ASection 68

Sh. Vijay Dhingra, New Delhi vs. CIT-X, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1148/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shuklain Ita No. 1148/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vijay Dhingra Vs. Commissioner Of 5456, Chowk Narain, Income Tax -X G.B Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aafpd8249P)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

Anand Baburao Bhosale, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2005-

ITA 7134/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-2006 Shri Anand Baburao Bhosale, The Ito 18(1)(4), Prop. Of M/S Unique Enterprises, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 315/4, Deen Building Compound, Mumbai - 400013 N.N. Joshi Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Acipb1064H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Baburao BhosaleFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

Baij Nath Shaw, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 28(3), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2119/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 144Section 44ASection 68

Brijmohan P. Rathi, Mumbai vs. ITO - 32(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5976/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) I.T.A. No. 5976/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11)

Section 44A

Sri Santanu Chatterjee, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Burdwan

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

ITA 1920/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1920/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Sri Santanu Chatterjee, Vs. Ito Ward-1(2), Burdwan C/O Benu Radio Product, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Baidyapur More, Opp.Uti Bank Compound, Burdwan Po-Kalna, Dist-Burdwan- 713101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhpc 8020 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suvo Chakraborty, Advocate Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-2009, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Burdwan, In Appeal No.365/Cit(A)/Asl/Wd-1(2)/Bwn/2010-11, Dated 26.07.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.10.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case, Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 17.06.2008 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,04,640/- . Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(2) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The Assessment By Making The Addition On Account Of Undisclosed Income U/S.69 At Rs.11,04,790/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Had Come To The Notice Of The Ao That The Assessee Had 2 Sri Santanu Chatterjee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.11,04,790/- In Axis Bank Kalana Bearing Account

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69

Nizar Noorali Govani, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhnizar Noorali Govani , Income Tax Officer, Flat No.1, Hill View Chs, Ward No. 19(3) (3), 241, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400050 Pan:Agbpg9175H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Tharashwala -ARFor Respondent: Sh. Suman Kumar-DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 69A