Section 44AD

Section 44AD — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 44AD, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Mr. Anandkumar v ACIT High CourtHelps department
  I am a partner. Can I take the salary and interest my firm pays me, call it my turnover, and offer 8 per cent of it under s.44AD?
  No. The High Court held that a partner receiving remuneration and interest from his firm is not himself carrying on a business, so those receipts cannot be termed a turnover, and they do not qualify as gross receipts either. Section 44AD applies only to an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business having a total turnover or gross receipts, and the assessee here had neither effected sales nor rendered services; the sums had already been debited in the firms' own profit and loss accounts. The appeal was dismissed and both questions of law were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. This is the answer to a scheme that is still marketed to partners, and it is a High Court answer, not a Tribunal one.
• CIT v Y. Ramachandra Reddy High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The officer made a best judgment assessment and fixed my profit at a percentage of receipts. Does that wipe out my claim to depreciation and to interest?
  No. The High Court held that depreciation and interest, which are otherwise deductible in the ordinary course of assessment, keep the same legal character even where the profit is determined on a percentage basis. There was no reason to withhold from the assessee, merely because his profit had been estimated, a facility he would have had on a regular computation. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Note the boundary of this: the assessee's receipts were far above the s.44AD threshold, so s.44AD did not apply to him at all. Where income is actually returned under s.44AD, s.44AD(2) provides that deductions under ss.30 to 38 are deemed to have been given full effect, and depreciation under s.32 falls inside that range.
• CIT v Surinder Pal Anand High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  I declared income under 44AD. Must I explain every individual cash deposit in my bank account?
  No. An assessee returning income under s.44AD is not obliged to explain each entry of cash deposit, unless the particular deposit has no nexus with the gross receipts already declared. The scheme substitutes a presumption for proof, and requiring transaction-by-transaction sourcing would defeat it.
• CIT v Gian Chand Labour Contractors High CourtHelps department
  The officer rejected my books and applied a flat net profit rate. Can I still claim my freight and other expenses separately?
  No. Once the books are rejected and income is estimated by applying a net profit rate, that rate is taken to have already absorbed every deduction that would otherwise be computed under sections 30 to 43A. You cannot have the estimate and the expenses too.
• Dinesh Chandra Das v ITO — s.44AD(6) shuts out the agent and the s.44AA(1) professional, but the whole receipt is still not income ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  The Assessing Officer says my client, who runs a pathology sample collection centre, cannot use s.44AD at all and has added the entire understated receipt. Is that right?
  On the first point the department was upheld: s.44AD(6) excludes a person carrying on a profession referred to in s.44AA(1), a person earning income in the nature of commission or brokerage, and a person carrying on any agency business, and the Tribunal agreed the assessee was a commission agent so that s.44AD did not apply. On the second point the assessee got relief: the entire differential receipt could not be treated as income because expenses had to be incurred, and the Tribunal directed a net profit rate of forty-five per cent on the gross receipts the Assessing Officer had worked out.
• Neeraj Dewangan v ITO ITATHelps departmentJudgment not reachable
  I offered 8% under 44AD for consultancy work. Can the AO push me into 44ADA at 50%?
  Yes, where the work is professional in character. Liaison services, coordination of statutory no-objection certificates and related facilitation were held to require specialised technical knowledge and so to amount to 'technical consultancy', a specified profession under s.44AA(1) read with s.44ADA — which made s.44AD unavailable and the 50% rate applicable.
• Mohamed Asmi v ITO ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  I filed under s.44AD and the officer has still added my whole bank credit under s.69A. Doesn't the presumptive return protect me?
  Not by itself. The Tribunal held that s.44AD and s.69A operate in distinct fields, and that a presumptive return cannot regularise deposits whose source and genuineness the assessee cannot establish; the entire addition of Rs 7,10,37,643 was sustained.
• DCIT v Smt. Ashu Ashok ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I declared more than 8 per cent under s.44AD. The officer has disallowed my expenditure for want of vouchers and allowed only 30 per cent on estimate. Can he do that?
  No. Where the case falls under s.44AD and the assessee has declared income above the prescribed rate of 8 per cent of gross receipts, she is not required to maintain books or documents to justify the expenditure, and estimating expenses and recomputing income is not within the Assessing Officer's domain. The Revenue's appeal against deletion of the addition was dismissed.
• Neeraj v PCIT — a s.263 revision directing a s.68 addition against a s.44AD return quashed for want of jurisdiction ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Principal Commissioner has revised my client's assessment under s.263 and directed the officer to tax his cash deposits under s.68, although he filed under s.44AD and keeps no books. Can that order stand?
  The Delhi Bench quashed it. Once an assessee has surrendered himself to a particular statute he becomes entitled to all its attending benefits; an assessee under s.44AD computes income as a percentage of turnover and is not required to maintain books of account, so the Principal Commissioner's direction to make a s.68 addition was questionable and the revision order suffered from a lack of requisite jurisdiction. The Bench recorded that it has consistently held that invocation of s.263 is not permissible in cases where the assessee files his return under s.44AD.
• Dipyaman Dutt v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I declared income under 44AD. Can the AO still add my cash deposits as unexplained income?
  No. Where income has been offered on a presumptive basis under s.44AD on declared turnover, cash deposits representing that turnover cannot be added again as unexplained income — that taxes the same receipts twice, once as deemed profit and once as unexplained credits.
• Calories Count v DCIT ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  The officer has rejected my books and worked out a much higher turnover from material impounded in a survey. If he does that, does he still have to apply the presumptive rate?
  On these facts, yes. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's determination of gross sales at Rs 1.87 crore against the Rs 87.34 lakh disclosed, but directed that the business profit be computed at 8 per cent of the redetermined turnover instead of the Rs 1.45 crore the officer had assessed.
• Manish Kumar Vijay v ITO ITATHelps taxpayer
  CPC added income because Form 26AS shows more receipts than my 44AD turnover. Can they do that?
  Not on the 26AS entry alone. Form 26AS is a third-party information source and is subject to error; here the deductor had reported the TDS against the wrong PAN, so the figure evidenced no receipt at all. An adjustment made without verifying the underlying transaction was deleted.
• Santosh Kumar v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The AO has taxed my entire cash deposit as undisclosed income. Can he be made to tax only the presumptive percentage of it instead?
  Yes, where the deposits are the takings of an eligible business. The Tribunal deleted an addition of the whole Rs 25,56,700 deposited and substituted income of Rs 2,05,000, computed at 8% of those deposits under s.44AD, on the footing that the real income and not the entire receipt is what is taxable.
• Masudan Tanti v ITO — s.44AD is unavailable once the claimed turnover crosses the ceiling, but the deposits still cannot be added whole ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  My client asked the officer to tax his bank deposits at eight per cent under s.44AD. The deposits are more than the s.44AD limit and the whole amount has been added. What now?
  Where the deposits said to be the turnover themselves exceed the s.44AD ceiling, s.44AD does not apply — the ceiling is part of the definition of 'eligible business' in the Explanation, not a rate condition. But that does not entitle the Assessing Officer to add the entire deposits: even in a best judgment assessment he must estimate the income, and the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for a fresh estimate after the assessee produced the evidence he had withheld below.
• Bichitrananda Rout v ITO — specified bank notes added under s.69A although the rest of the turnover was taxed at eight per cent under s.44AD ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My client returned his business income at eight per cent under s.44AD and says his old-note deposits came out of his opening cash. The officer has added the specified bank notes anyway. Can that stand?
  It can, and here it did. The Assessing Officer accepted the balance of the turnover and estimated income on it at eight per cent, but treated the specified bank notes of Rs 8,35,500 as unexplained under s.69A, and the Cuttack Bench confirmed the addition and dismissed the appeal because the assessee produced a cash sales statement rather than a cash book, could not establish the actual cash in hand as on 1 November 2016, and could not explain from whom he had received demonetised notes after the appointed date.
• Gunita Pradeep Kapur v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I trade in futures and options. The officer has disallowed my loss because I did not get a tax audit and has brought s.44AD into it. Does s.44AD apply to derivative trading at all?
  The Tribunal held that s.44AD cannot be a reference point where the profit or loss arises from derivatives, futures and options in shares or commodities, because the section deals with regular business in the retail of goods, and that reliance on it by the authorities below was misplaced. The loss of Rs 35,81,745 was allowed, the absence of a tax audit not being a ground to disallow the claim.
• Prakash Bhansali v ACIT — no s.271B penalty where the assessee declared under s.44AD(1) and turnover stayed under the ceiling, even though it crossed Rs 1 crore ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My client's turnover was Rs 1.22 crore, above the s.44AB audit limit. He declared eight per cent under s.44AD and got no audit. The officer has levied s.271B. Is he liable?
  No. For the year in issue the first proviso to s.44AB took out of that section a person who declared profits and gains for the previous year in accordance with s.44AD(1) and whose total sales, turnover or gross receipts in business did not exceed two crore rupees in that previous year. Because the assessee had declared 8.02 per cent of a turnover of about Rs 1.22 crore under s.44AD(1), no obligation to get his accounts audited was cast upon him, and the Raipur Bench vacated the penalty of Rs 61,365. Read the proviso in its current form for later years: section 15 of the Finance Act 2023 substituted it with effect from 1 April 2024, and it now disapplies s.44AB to a person who declares under s.44AD(1) or s.44ADA(1), with no monetary condition of its own.
• Yuvraj Singh v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The officer treated my cash deposits as turnover, said I crossed the s.44AB limit and levied s.271B. The quantum was settled under Vivad se Vishwas. Does the penalty still stand?
  No. Where the assessee's declared turnover was below the s.44AB threshold and the officer crossed the threshold only by adding cash deposits to it, and the quantum dispute ended under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020 without any final judicial finding on the correctness of the turnover, the benefit of the doubt goes to the assessee and the s.271B penalty is reversed.
• Niranjan Lal Gupta v ITO ITATCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  Neither your original nor your revised return carried the self-assessment tax. The officer ignored that and assessed you on the original return. Is the assessment good?
  No. The Tribunal held that both returns were defective under s.139(9) because the self-assessment tax had not been paid, that the Assessing Officer should have directed the assessee to rectify the defect and had issued no defect notice at all, and that the assessment could not simply be built on the original return. The entire assessment was set aside and the officer directed to pass a fresh order under s.144.
• Rashmi Subhash Jha v ITO — 'consultancy' is not 'technical consultancy', and deduction under s.194J does not make the receipt professional ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The CPC has re-cast my client's s.44AD return as a s.44ADA return under s.143(1)(a) because her clients deducted tax under s.194J. Is a consultant a professional for this purpose?
  No, on this order. The word 'consultancy' does not appear in s.44AA(1), which speaks of 'technical consultancy', and technical consultancy means the rendering of technical services; a consultant is therefore carrying on a business and may return income under s.44AD. The rate at which a client deducts tax while paying the assessee is of absolutely no relevance to the character of the receipt in the recipient's hands, and the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer and the CPC under s.143(1)(a) was held bad in law.
• Kokkarne Prabhakar v ITO ITATHelps taxpayer
  My return was under s.44AD. The officer has added the whole gap between my Form 26AS turnover and my declared turnover, and has also added my bank deposits under s.68. Can he do either?
  Not in that form, but read the second half of this order narrowly. On the turnover gap the Tribunal held, in its own words at para 7, that the difference between the declared turnover and the Form 26AS turnover 'is to be part of the business turnover of the assessee', that it 'should be included in the total turnover of the assessee and income of 8% is to be estimated on it', and that 'the entire undisclosed turnover of Rs.5,05,050/- cannot be considered as income of the assessee'; the Assessing Officer was directed to consider 8 per cent of that sum. On the deposits the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs 3,00,000, saying that once the assessment of the assessee was completed under s.44AD there cannot be any application of s.68 or s.69A. The appeal was partly allowed. What the order decides on that second ground is narrower than the sentence in which it is expressed: a deposit addition of Rs 3,00,000 could not stand alongside a completed s.44AD assessment on a declared turnover of Rs 41,41,302. The sentence itself is wider than the High Court authority under it, because CIT v. Surinder Pal Anand relieves the assessee of explaining individual cash deposits only where the deposit has a nexus with the gross receipts already declared, and it is the order of a single Accountant Member. Do not take it as a general immunity from s.68 and s.69A on a presumptive return.
• Arthur Bernard Sebastine Pais v DCIT (CPC) ITATHelps taxpayer
  CPC has processed my return, decided that my receipts belong under s.44ADA at 50 per cent instead of s.44AD at 8 per cent, and raised a demand. Can that be done in a s.143(1) intimation?
  No. The Tribunal held that the whole of the gross receipts had in fact been included in the return, under s.44AD, so the condition for an adjustment under s.143(1)(a)(vi) — that income appearing in Form 26AS has not been included in computing the total income — was simply absent, and the addition fell on that ground alone. It went further and said that whether the income has to be taxed under s.44AD or under s.44ADA cannot be the subject matter of a decision in processing under s.143(1)(a). Be careful what you take from this. The Tribunal expressly declined to decide whether the assessee's management consultancy receipts were assessable under s.44ADA or s.44AD, and nothing in the order holds that they were not professional receipts.
• Nand Lal Popli v DCIT ITATCuts both ways
  I return income under 44AD. Can the AO treat the balance of my receipts as expenditure actually incurred?
  No. Once income is estimated at a percentage of gross receipts, the residual percentage is a notional figure, not a finding that expenditure of that amount was in fact incurred. With the declared turnover undisturbed, an addition built on that assumption has no foundation.
• C. Eswara Reddy & Co v ACIT ITATCuts both waysSuperseded by amendment
  The officer rejected my firm's books and estimated the profit at a percentage of receipts. Can the firm still deduct salary and interest paid to its partners from that estimated figure?
  For the years this order governs, yes. The Tribunal held that s.44AD(2) deems only the deductions under ss.30 to 38 to have been given full effect; s.40 is not deemed to have been allowed, and the proviso to s.44AD(2) as it then stood said in terms that salary and interest paid to a partner shall be deducted from the income computed under s.44AD(1), subject to the ceiling in s.40(b). Taking a clue from that scheme, the Tribunal directed the officer to allow partner salary and interest from the estimated income. On depreciation it went the other way: because depreciation is allowable under s.32, which falls inside ss.30 to 38, no separate deduction for depreciation was permitted from the estimate. The order concerns assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and rests squarely on a proviso Parliament has since deleted.
• Statutory position — s.44AD(1) and (2): the eight and six per cent rates, the Rs 2 crore / Rs 3 crore ceiling, and the partner's-salary proviso that was omitted CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client wants to file under s.44AD. What turnover can he have, what rate must he declare, and can the firm still deduct partners' salary and interest from the presumptive figure?
  Eight per cent of turnover, or six per cent of so much of the turnover as is received by account payee cheque, account payee bank draft, electronic clearing system or other prescribed electronic mode during the previous year or before the s.139(1) due date. The eligible-business ceiling is two crore rupees, replaced by three crore rupees where cash receipts do not exceed five per cent of turnover (Finance Act 2023, from AY 2024-25) — and the proviso that once let a firm deduct partners' salary and interest from the s.44AD figure was omitted by the Finance Act 2016 with effect from 1 April 2017, so it is not available for AY 2017-18 or any later year.
• Statutory position — s.44ADA: fifty per cent, the Rs 50 lakh / Rs 75 lakh ceiling, and the audit condition in s.44ADA(4) CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client is a professional with gross receipts of about Rs 62 lakh, nearly all banked. Can he still use s.44ADA, and if he wants to declare less than fifty per cent, must he be audited?
  Section 44ADA deems fifty per cent of the total gross receipts of a resident individual or partnership firm (not an LLP) engaged in a profession referred to in s.44AA(1) to be the profits of that profession, where gross receipts do not exceed fifty lakh rupees — raised to seventy-five lakh rupees where cash receipts do not exceed five per cent of gross receipts. By s.44ADA(4), a professional who claims profits LOWER than the deemed fifty per cent must keep books under s.44AA(1) and get them audited under s.44AB only if his total income exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax.
• Statutory position — s.44AB, provisos to clause (a): the Rs 10 crore threshold and the 5 per cent cash test CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  My client's turnover is Rs 6 crore and almost everything moves through the bank. Is he outside tax audit, and what counts as 'cash' for the 5 per cent test?
  The Rs 1 crore threshold in s.44AB(a) is replaced by Rs 10 crore only where BOTH tests are met — cash receipts do not exceed 5 per cent of all amounts received, and cash payments do not exceed 5 per cent of all payments made. For that purpose the statute itself deems a payment or receipt by a cheque or bank draft which is not account payee to be a payment or receipt in cash.
• Statutory position — the first proviso to s.234C(1): no interest for a shortfall caused by capital gains, casual income, first-year business income or dividend income CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client sold a property in February and paid the whole tax on it with the March instalment. The intimation still charges s.234C interest on the June, September and December instalments. Is there a defence in the section itself?
  Yes, and it is in the section itself rather than in any circular. The first proviso to s.234C(1) disapplies the sub-section to any shortfall in the payment of tax due on the returned income where the shortfall is on account of under-estimate or failure to estimate (a) the amount of capital gains, (b) income of the nature referred to in s.2(24)(ix) — casual income such as winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles and races, (c) income under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' in cases where the income accrues or arises under that head for the first time, or (d) the amount of dividend income. The relief is conditional: the assessee must have paid the whole of the tax payable in respect of that income, computed as if it were part of the total income, as part of the remaining instalments of advance tax which are due, or where no such instalments are due, by 31 March of the financial year.
• Statutory position — s.44AE: Rs 1,000 per tonne for a heavy goods vehicle from AY 2019-20, Rs 7,500 for every other goods carriage CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client runs six trucks, two of them well over twelve tonnes. What does he declare under s.44AE, and from which year did the per-tonne rate start?
  For a heavy goods vehicle the deemed profit is one thousand rupees per tonne of gross vehicle weight or unladen weight, as the case may be, for every month or part of a month of ownership, or the amount claimed to have been actually earned from that vehicle, whichever is higher; for every other goods carriage it is seven thousand five hundred rupees a month on the same 'whichever is higher' basis. That differentiated structure, and the definition of a heavy goods vehicle as a goods carriage whose gross vehicle weight exceeds 12,000 kilograms, were substituted into s.44AE by section 16 of the Finance Act 2018 with effect from 1 April 2019 — that is, from AY 2019-20.
• Statutory position — s.44AA(2): who must keep books of account, and the thresholds CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  My client runs a small business, not a notified profession. At what point is he obliged to keep books at all, and what are the current figures?
  For a business or a non-specified profession, books must be kept if income from the business or profession exceeds Rs 1,20,000 OR total sales, turnover or gross receipts exceed Rs 10,00,000 in any one of the three years immediately preceding the previous year. For an individual or a Hindu undivided family two provisos raise those figures to Rs 2,50,000 and Rs 25,00,000 respectively.
• Statutory position — s.211: the four advance tax instalments, and the single 15 March instalment for a s.44AD or s.44ADA presumptive assessee CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client returns income under s.44AD. The CPC has charged s.234C interest on four instalments. Is a presumptive assessee not entitled to pay the whole advance tax by 15 March?
  He is. Section 211(1) now splits assessees into two classes: clause (a) covers 'all the assessees, other than the assessee referred to in clause (b)', who pay in four instalments — fifteen per cent by 15 June, forty-five per cent by 15 September, seventy-five per cent by 15 December and the whole by 15 March, each cumulative and reduced by earlier instalments; clause (b) covers 'an assessee who declares profits and gains in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 44AD or sub-section (1) of section 44ADA', who pays 'to the extent of the whole amount of such advance tax during each financial year on or before the 15th March'. Section 234C(1)(b) mirrors this exactly, charging a presumptive assessee interest only on the shortfall from the tax due on the returned income as at 15 March.
• Statutory position — s.44AD(4) and s.44AD(5): the five-year lock-out, and why the books-and-audit duty bites only if total income exceeds the exemption limit CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client filed under s.44AD for two years and then declared below eight per cent in the third. What happens to him for the next five years, and does he now have to get audited?
  By s.44AD(4), an eligible assessee who has declared profit in accordance with s.44AD and who, in any of the five assessment years relevant to the succeeding previous years, declares profit NOT in accordance with s.44AD(1), is shut out of s.44AD for the five assessment years subsequent to the assessment year in which he broke ranks. By s.44AD(5), that assessee must keep books under s.44AA(2) and get them audited and reported under s.44AB only if his total income exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax — a condition that both the department and the assessee routinely read out of the sub-section.
• Statutory position — s.207(2): a resident individual of sixty or more with no business income is outside advance tax altogether CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client is 71, resident, retired, and lives on pension, interest and capital gains. The CPC intimation charges her interest under s.234B and s.234C. Is she liable to advance tax at all?
  No. Section 207(2) says in terms that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to an individual resident in India who (a) does not have any income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' and (b) is of the age of sixty years or more at any time during the previous year. Once s.207(1) does not apply, there is no advance tax liability to default on, and s.234B and s.234C — which both operate on an assessee liable to pay advance tax under s.208 — have nothing to attach to.
• Income Tax Dept presumptive taxation tutorial CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  What are the current 44AD, 44ADA and 44AB limits, and what does the 5% cash test mean?
  For AY 2024-25 onwards: s.44AD applies up to Rs. 2 crore turnover, or Rs. 3 crore where cash receipts are within 5%, at 8% (6% for receipts by account payee cheque or draft or electronic mode); s.44ADA up to Rs. 50 lakh, or Rs. 75 lakh on the same condition, at 50%. Audit under s.44AB is triggered at Rs. 1 crore turnover for business, Rs. 10 crore where cash receipts and cash payments are each within 5%, and Rs. 50 lakh gross receipts for a profession. The 5% cash cap is the same thing as routing more than 95% of transactions through banking channels.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.