Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.63

Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 63 (Tax Audit) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 63 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 44AB is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 of the 2,486 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44AB

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32
9 SCC 1 · 2018 · Supreme Court
533
citing judgments
Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT
213 ITR 523 · 1995 · High Court
311
citing judgments

Expenditure is deductible in the year it is determined and crystallised as a liability, even if it relates to a transaction of an earlier year, provided accounts are maintained on a mercantile basis.

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.
355 ITR 498 · 2013 · High Court
252
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT
30 SOT 374 · 2009 · ITAT
201
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad
8 SCC 266 · 1999 · Supreme Court
163
citing judgments

If a statute or law prescribes that a thing must be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner alone and in no other way. This principle mandates strict adherence to statutory procedures.

CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.
317 ITR 249 · 2009 · High Court
140
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income under section 80-IA(7) and similar provisions is directory, not mandatory. Such a report suffices if filed at any time before the assessment is framed.

Vijay Trading Co. v. ITO
388 ITR 377 · 2016 · High Court
119
citing judgments

When purchases are found bogus, only the profit element embedded therein, and not the entire purchase value, can be added to the assessee's income.

CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.
254 ITR 503 · 2002 · High Court
118
citing judgments

A deduction claimed under Section 80-IB (or 80-IA) cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-filing or delayed filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB, as such procedural requirements can be treated as directory, and delays may be condoned.

Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT
222 ITR 691 · 1996 · High Court
114
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied if a penalty under Section 271A has already been imposed for non-maintenance of books of account.

Judgments on Section 44AB

ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Sidhartha Engineering Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 332/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S Sidhartha Engineering Bhubaneswar Limited, Plot No.1389, Gandamunda Bhubaneswar-751030 स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aadcs 1603 H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Citdr निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 31.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified On Facts & In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.87,54,592/- Made By The Ao Considering Reasonable Rate Of Net Profit I.E. 7.59% Of The Turnover Of The Assessee. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & Having Regard To The Findings Given By The Ao In The Assessment Order, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Upheld The Above Addition Made By The Assessing Officer. 3. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend Or Add Any Other Ground That May Be Considered Necessary In Course Of The Appeal Proceedings. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Electrical Contractor & Filed Return Of Income On 29.09.2012 With Total Income Of Rs.1,51,74,221/-. Subsequently The Case

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, CITDR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Vijay Lal, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 120/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.120/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Vijay Lal Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), C/O-Vijay Motors-Mahindra Bhubaneswar Division, Plot No.27, Near Chintamaniswar Square & Icici Bank, Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar-751006 स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaepl 8429 N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 23.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,67,73,661/- To The Returned Total Income As Loss Of Stock By Fire As Unexplained Expenses, Which Is Contrary To The Evidence On Record, Rules & Facts, Hence The Same Is Liable To Be Deleted. 2. That The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,67,73,661/- To The Returned Total Income As Loss Of Stock By Fire Being Unexplained Expenses, Which Is Contrary To The Evidence On Record, Rules & Facts, Hence The Same Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Making An Addition Of Rs.4,32,692/- To The Returned Total Income As Goods Delivery Expenses Being Unexplained

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, CITDR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A