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

Subhadra Apartment Owners Welfare Society, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 434/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S.Sainiआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.434/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Subhadra Apartment Owners Vs. Ito, Ward-5(4), Welfare Society, Flat No.102B, Bhubaneswar Subhadra Apartment, Nandan Kanan Road, Kiit, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaeas 3848 K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.7.2017. 2. The Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed Adjournment Petition Requesting For Adjournment Of Hearing. The Reason Stated In The Adjournment Petition Was Not Found To Be A Plausible One And, Therefore, Adjournment Petition Was Rejected & The Appeal Was Disposed Off Considering The Materials Available On Record & The Submissions Of Ld. Departmental Representative. 3. Ground No.2 Of The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,58,310/- Being 10% Of The Total Expenditure. 4. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Assessee Failed To Furnish Bills & Vouchers For The Expenses Of Rs.25,83,099/-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 194CSection 40Section 44A

M/S B. W. M International, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-44(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1006/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1006/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S B. W. M International Vs. I.T.O, Ward – 44(4), Kolkata. 4, Meer Boharghat Street, Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfb 3904 B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri T. K. Chakraborty, Advocate. राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shri Kalyannath, Acit सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-13, Kolkata In Appeal No.562/Cit(A)-13/W-44(4)/14-15, Dated 23.04.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 26.03.2010. 2.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding Penalty Of Rs.1,00,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of The I.T. Act Without Recording Any Finding As To How The Submission Of The Assessee Was Not Acceptable As Evidence. 2.That, The Ld. Cit(A) Also Erred In Law In Confirming Penalty U/S 271B Of The I.T Act Without Legally Considering The Provision Of Sec. 273B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri T. K. Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri KalyanNath, ACIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A