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
13
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
8
citing judgments
Smt. Renu Aggarwal v. ITO
358 ITR 483 · Reported
6
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 44AF

ITO, New Delhi vs. Vineet Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4117/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ITO, New Delhi vs. Vineet Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4116/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Natbar Nath, Koraput vs. ITO, Jeypore

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

ITA 206/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 44A

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Yadav, New Delhi

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

ITA 3724/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Mukesh Yadav, Ward-26(3), House No.74, New Delhi. Village Paprawat, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Pan: Abtpy9192P

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 144Section 44A

Shri Amal Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-50(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 724/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.724/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Shri Amal Saha, Near Vs. Ito, Ward-50(2)/Kolkata, Karbala Bridge, West Uttarpan Complex, Chandigarh, Kora Ultadanga, Chandigarh, Madhyamgram, Kolkata-700054 Kolkata-700130 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Awhps 4079 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.N.Purohit, Fca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subro Das, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2008-2009, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata, In Appeal No.65/Cit(A)-15/14-15/Wed-50(2)/Kol, Dated 27.01.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Has Submitted His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 28- 07-2008 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,29,460/-. The Return Of Assessee Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The I.T.Act On 23.06.2009. Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The Assessment By Making Addition On Account Of 2 Shri Amal Saha

For Appellant: Shri Subro Das, JCITFor Respondent: Shri V.N.Purohit, FCA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 40A(3)

ITO 6(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Asahi Infrastructure Projects Lt, Akola

In the result this appeal by the revenue is stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4863/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: Shri. Anil Thakrar
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271ASection 44Section 44A

Piyush Madhani, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4213/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 51

Piyush Madhani, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4212/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 51

Piyush Madhani, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4211/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 51

Piyush Madhani, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 44, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4210/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 51

Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 283/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Feb 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Arun Gangwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 154Section 44ASection 69Section 69C

Nayana Panchal, Mumbai vs. ITO WD- 25(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2269/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2269/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Nayana Panchal, Ito- Ward 25(1)(4), बनाम/ 16, Sindhi Chawl, Mumbai. V. Road No. 6, Daulat Nagar, Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400 066. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aicpp0500E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

Kartik Chandra Roy, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 2(4), Kolkata, Burdwan

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed partly

ITA 2030/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

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

Smt. Anju Deshwal, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed accordingly

ITA 3564/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: SH. HARI OM BHATI, CAFor Respondent: SH. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

Sh. Vinod Kumar, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

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

ITA 2944/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 44Section 44A

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subhash Sachdeva, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical

ITA 2694/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 44A

Subhash Sachdeva, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical

ITA 2225/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 44A

Lakhan Bansidhar Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7152/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm M/S. Lakhan Bansidhar Vs. Ito – 24 (2)(4), Mumbai Gupta 272, Gupta Cottage, Chincholi Bunder Road, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No. Aknpg5608F Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

Sh. Imran, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 6849/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 39(2)Section 44A

Shri Arun Kumar Jain, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3693/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3693/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Sh. Arun Kumar Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer, R-5/25, Raj Nagar, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad (Up)-201002 Ghaziabad (Up) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpj5103B Assessee By : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Parashar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.03.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar.

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 44ASection 68Section 69Section 69A