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.

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 219)

Rajesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 840/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 839 To 842/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajesh Agarwal..............................…………………………………..................................Appellant C/O S.L. Kachar, Advocate, 86, Canning Street, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Adhpa 3042 Q] Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata……………………………………………….............................Respondent 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…section 44AB. In support on this contention, he has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Suraj Mal Parasuram Todi vs CIT 222 ITR 691 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 wherein it was held that the requirement of getting books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained and where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non- maintenance of books of account under section 271A and no penalty can be imposed under section 271B for violation of section 44AB. In…

Rajesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 839/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 839 To 842/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajesh Agarwal..............................…………………………………..................................Appellant C/O S.L. Kachar, Advocate, 86, Canning Street, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Adhpa 3042 Q] Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata……………………………………………….............................Respondent 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…section 44AB. In support on this contention, he has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Suraj Mal Parasuram Todi vs CIT 222 ITR 691 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 wherein it was held that the requirement of getting books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained and where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non- maintenance of books of account under section 271A and no penalty can be imposed under section 271B for violation of section 44AB. In…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Joshi, Kishangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Kishangarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Ray (JCIT)

Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 271BSection 44Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 73/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2011-12 Nirmal Kumar Joshi cuke ITO, Vs. C/o Rajasthan Marble, Ward-1, Makran Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh Kishangarh, LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AGCPJ 8574 C vihykFkhZ@Assessee izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 74/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Krishan Murari Agarwal cuk…

Yogendra Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1001/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)

Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…here no books of account were maintaining, the levy of penalty U/s 271B was held ITA 1001/JP/2016_ 3 Yogendra Singh Shekhawat Vs ITO erroneous. The ld AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bisauli Tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 wherein similar view has been affirmed. The ld AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of Ram Prakash C. Puri Vs. ACIT 77 ITD 210 wherein by following the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High court in the case Surajmal Parasram Todi Vs. CIT (supra), the penalty levied U/s 271B was deleted. The ld AR distinguished the c…