How many judgments cite CIT v. Bisauli Tractors?

81 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bisauli Tractors (299 ITR 219), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bisauli Tractors come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271B, Section 44AB, Section 44AA, Section 271A, Section 1872, Section 142(1).

CIT v. Bisauli Tractors

299 ITR 219High Court2008#1407 most cited

What is CIT v. Bisauli Tractors authority for?

If an assessee has not maintained books of accounts, the question of getting those accounts audited under Section 44AB does not arise, and therefore, a penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied. Non-maintenance of books is separately punishable under Section 271A.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,846 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bisauli Tractors · penalty under Section 271B · Section 271A · Section 44AB · non-maintenance of books of accounts · failure to get accounts audited · audit not possible without books · deletion of penalty · levy of penalty · section 44AA

Also reported as

165 Taxmann 1

Sections most often in play

Section 271B Section 44AB Section 44AA Section 271A Section 1872 Section 142(1)Section 250 Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 28(1)penalty under section 271b section 44aa section 271b deletion of penalty section 18 section 271a section 44a section 44ab section 44 penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars

Judgments citing CIT v. Bisauli Tractors

Anita Mehrotra, Narendra Sadan vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 137/ALLD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 101Section 103Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194ASection 271BSection 44A

…ccounts by assessee u/s. 44AA of the Act, penalty u/s. 271B cannot be imposed. 7. Per contra, the learned DR relied upon the orders passed by both the lower authorities. 8. The AR further submitted that Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held in the order [(2007) 165 Taxmann 1 All)] CIT, Bareilly Vs. Bisauli Tractors that the Section 271B of the Act is not attracted in a case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse u/s. 271A can be taken. 9. Further, in support of his contentions the Ld. AR has relied upon following decisions . Mohit Garg Vs. ITO (DEL-Trib.) :(2022) 109 TLC 395, (ITAT Delhi) 12.…

Shri Antriksh Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-35(4), Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 2421/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271ASection 271B

…enalty under section 271A of the Act was levied for non-maintenance of books of accounts, the penalty under section 271B of the Act was not leviable. We have taken note of the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bisauli Tractors [2008] 299 ITR 219, which reads as under: Sh. Antriksh Gupta “7. It may be mentioned here that separate penalty has been provided for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under Section 271A of the Act and for not getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under Section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the assessing officer did not i…

Shri Antriksh Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-35(4), Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 2420/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271ASection 271B

Fairdeal Medical and General Stores, Mumbai vs. Income Officer 24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5495/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Karuna Shridhankar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…e Bench in the case of Jaydev Bavalal Thummar vs. ITO [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1594 (Rajkot-Trib.) and Rajnikant Hargovinddas Sanadia vs. Income Tax Officer ITA No. 267/Rjt/2022. 8. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors [2008] 299 ITR 219 (All.), has held that “Separate penalty has been provided for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A of the Act and for not getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not impose penalty under section 271A of the Act and instead…

Bhaveshbhai Haribhai Kanani, Jamnagar vs. ITO WD-1(3) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 254/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.254/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bhaveshbhai Haribhai Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Kanani, Ward-1(3), Jamnagar, Taranjali Vs Buildng, Income Tax Officer, Nr. Plot No.E211, Gidc Phase- 2 Dared, Jamnagar-361008 Amber Cinema, Pt. Nehru Marg, Hospital Rod, Jamanagar-361 008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypk 5085 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 18.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Levied U/S 271B Of The Act, Dated 23.11.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well On Fact In Upholding Penalty Of Rs.1,50,000 Imposed By Ld.Ao U/S 271B Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…ction 44AD of the Act, the assessee need not to maintain the books of accounts. Since, the assessee did not maintain the books of account, therefore, no penalty should be imposed u/s. 271B of the Act. I note that in the case of CIT v. Bisauli Tractors [(2008) 299 ITR 219 (All.)], the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that when the assessee had not maintained books of account, the question of getting the books audited under Section 44AB would not arise. Therefore, penalty under Section 271B was not leviable. Therefore, I note that if no books are maintained, the foundation of audit collapses, and hence penalty can…

Bhadraiahkallenahallidinesha, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandya

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

ITA 1507/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Bhadraiah Kallenahalli Dinesha, Vs. Ito, 12, Kallenahally Village, Ward –1, Thiruganahalli Post, Mandya. Honkere Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk Mandya – 571 432. Pan : Bibpd 0214 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Tharun Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 271B

….03.2023) which had followed the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court judgment in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs. CIT reported in (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau) and the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bisauli Tractors reported in (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All.). 5. The learned DR submitted that the matter can be restored to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation application now filed before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 2 months 3 days in filing t…

Amit Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 636/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.635 & 636/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Amit Khemka ITO, Ward-43(1), Kolkata 114/1B, Cotton Street, Kolkata- Vs 700007. (PAN: AFYPK4310E) (assessee ) (Respondent) Present for: assessee by : Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCA Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing :20.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement :20.08.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Incom…

Amit Khemka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 68

Naresh Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO Charkhi Dadri, Haryana

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 122/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions before him. After considering the details submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty levied by Assessing Officer.

Section 271BSection 271DSection 44A

…ed any books of accounts. The appellant hereby relied upon the following case laws: 1. Yogendera Singh Shekhwat Vs ITO (ITA 1001/JP/2016) Order dt 24th April 2017 (ITAT Jaipur) (Page 64-68) following and approving the case laws: (i) CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors (299 ITR 219) (Allahabad). Naresh Kumar vs. ITO (ii) CIT Vs. S K Gupta (2010) 322 ITR 86(Allahabad). (iii) CIT Vs. Surajmal Parsuram Todi (1996)222 ITR 691 (Gauhati). That it is apparent and transpired from the record that no prior approval / sanction has been obtained from Jt. CIT before passing a penalty order u/s 271B. (CIT Appeal Order Page 18). The rele…

Haresh Ghashyamdas Makhija, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2906/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha GhindFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…penal provision for levying penalty for not maintaining of books of accounts prescribed u/s. 271A and therefore if at all penalty should have been levied under this section. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors reported in 299 ITR 219 had held that Section 271B of the Act is not attracted in the case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse u/s.271A can be taken. This principle has again been reiterated by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K Gupta reported in 322 ITR 86. Similar view has been taken by the Hon 'ble Guahati High Court in…

Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2904/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha GhindFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Manphool Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 271B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 748/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke Manphool Singh Income Tax Officer, Vs. C-142, Mangal Marg, Bapu Ward 6(2), Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEPPS 4925 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dev Arora (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

Uma Mandal, Jaipur (Rajasthan) vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

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

ITA 281/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…ance of books of account u/s 271A and no penalty can be imposed u/s 271B for violation of section 44AB requiring ITA Nos.6696 & 6645/Del/2014 audit of accounts. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All). The Hon'ble Aliahabad High Court reiterated the similar view in CIT and Anr. Vs. S.K. Gupta and Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All) by holding that requirement of getting the books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained. In the absence of the maintenance of books of account, there Can be no penalty u/s 271B of…

Uma Mandal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 280/JPR/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Smt. Laxmi Devi Chandwani, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 99/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chandwani V Income Tax Officer Agrasen Chowk S Ward-1(1), Bilaspur Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh-495 001. Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Agmpc 8368H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.R. Rao, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.02.2023 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2014-15, Arises From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.09.2022. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271B Imposed By Learned Assessing Officer.”

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.99/RPR/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chandwani V Income Tax Officer Agrasen Chowk s Ward-1(1), Bilaspur Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh-495 001. Chhattisgarh-495 001 PAN: AGMPC 8368H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.R. Rao, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /…

Varadagovind Parthasarthy Iyer (Through Legal Heir Arvind Iyer), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1716/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…penal provision for levying penalty for non-maintaining of books of accounts prescribed u/s. 271A and therefore if at all penalty should have been levied under this section. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors reported in 299 ITR 219 had held that Section 271B of the Act is not attracted in the case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse u/s.271A can be taken. This principle has again been reiterated by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K Gupta reported in 322 ITR 86. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Guahati High Court in t…

Shri Anil Omprakash Mishra, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 314/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Anil Om Prakash Mishra, I.T.O., A-281, Shubham Bunglows, Sachin, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Surat-394230. Surat. Pan No. Ajnpm 7661 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

…rescribed under Section 271A. It is for the Tribunal to take action in accordance with law.” 6 Sh. Anil Omprakash Mishra Vs ITO 7. A similar view has also been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Bisauli Tractors reported in (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All.), wherein it is held that if a person is not maintained books of account, the question of audit does not arise. Further, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that in such an event, the imposition of penalty u/s 271A of the I.T.Act for alleged non-compliance with section 44AA of the I.T.Act may arise but the provisions of section 44AB of th…

Rakesh Kumar Jha, Jamshedpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 72/RAN/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.72/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Rakesh Kumar Jha………....…...………………......................……...…..….. Appellant 6, Shatabdi Tower, 1, Snp Area, Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001. [Pan: Adkpj7309N] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Jamshedpur……..…..………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. S. Paul, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 44B

…I.T.A. No.72/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Rakesh Kumar Jha IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.72/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Rakesh Kumar Jha………....…...………………......................……...…..….. Appellant 6, Shatabdi Tower, 1, SNP Area, Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001. [PAN: ADKPJ7309N] vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Jamshedpur……..…..………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances by: Shri P. S. Paul, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR, appeared on…

Dummi Shivaraj Deepak, Davangerre vs. Incometax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 74/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sunaina Bhatia & Sri.Ravishankar S.V. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Matta Padma, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…earned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT reported in (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Bisauli Tractors reported in (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All.). The learned AR further submitted that there is reasonable cause as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act, since the assessee was under the bonafide belief that only the gross commission is to be considered as turnover for the purpose of section 44AB of the I.T.Act. In this context, the learned AR relied on the order of ITAT Delhi Benches in th…

Maranaikana Halli Jayashella Shetty Pradeepkumar, Mysore vs. The ACIT, Circle - 1(1) & Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 1136/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 4Section 44A

…tion 44AA and for that penalty is prescribed under Section 271A. It is for the Tribunal to take action in accordance with law.” 7. A similar view has also been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Bisauli Tractors reported in (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All.), wherein it is held that if a person is not maintained books of account, the question of audit does not arise. Further, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that in such an event, the imposition of penalty u/s 4 ITA No.1136/Bang/2022. Maranaikana Halli Jayashella Shetty Pradeepkumar. 271A of the I.T.Act for alleged non-compliance with sec…