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

New Laxmi Enterprises, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2789/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 New Laxmi Enterprises The Income Tax Officer, 702, Laxmi Narayan Apartments, Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai Rane Compound, Natvar Nagar Vs. Road No. 1, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai - 400060 (Pan : Aadfn2479B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073736005(1), Dated 26.02.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assessment Officer, Mum-W- (404)(93), U/S. 147/148 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 21.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: " 1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ered In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,58,23,513 Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Is A Builder & The Flats Sold Were Stock In Trade Which Is Chargeable To Tax Under The Head Business Income & Not Capital Gains. 2) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Considered That Out Of The Addition Of Rs 1,58,23,513, Sale Value Of Flats Of Rs. 1,56,42,514

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 43CSection 44ASection 50C

Bharat Jain, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi vs. AO/ADIT-CPC Bengaluru, Civic Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 4986/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbharat Jain, Vs. Adit – Cpc, Flat No.133, Pocket G, Sfs Flats, Bengaluru. Maharaja Agarsen Marg, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi – 110 076. (Pan : Aaapj4180E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate Shri Shivam Jain, Advocate Shri Rajiv Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2024 Date Of Order : 06.08.2024 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.08.2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee For The Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Status Of 2 The Assessee Was Clearly Mentioned As Non-Resident As Residential Status Of The Assessee In Itr 3 Filed On 16.12.2020 With The Acknowledgement No.826193800161220. With The Above Facts On Record, He Submitted That The Authorities Below Proceeded To Apply The Provisions Of Section 44Ada Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For The Reason That Assessee Has Not Maintained Proper Books Of Account For Carrying On The Professional Activities, Therefore, They Applied The Presumptive Tax @ 50%. He Submitted That Provisions Of Section 44Ada Are Not Applicable To The Non-Resident & It Was Wrongly Applied In Assessee’S Case. He Further Submitted That The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal By Observing As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 30Section 44A

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

Smita Subhash Mehta, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 1108/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1108/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Smita Subhash Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Pitruchaya, Teen Batti Naka, Khed, Ratnagiri- 415709. Pan : Ankpm7084P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Anup Bipin Shaha Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & The Ld. Ao Erred In Making The Addition Of Rs.1,50,79,576/- Under Section 69A Of The Act & The Same Is Based On Surmise & Guesswork. The Addition Be Deleted & The Appellant Be Given Just & Due Relief. 2. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & The Ld. Ao Erred In Making The Addition Of Rs.1,50,79,576/- Under Section 69A Of The Act Without Considering The Appellant'S Response That The Deposits In The Impugned Account Are Already Accounted For In Her

For Appellant: Shri Anup Bipin ShahaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A