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

Innovate Designers&Builders Private Limited, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Trivandrum

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

ITA 940/COCH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2022-23 Innovate Designers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Tc 93/1944 Krishna Flat, Kra 11A Railway Station Road, Pallikuku, Pettah Thiruvananthapuram 695024 [Pan: Aaeci2784C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kochi, Dated 25.09.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Undertaking Civil Contracts & 2 Innovate Designers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Constructions. The Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 Was Filed On 26.09.2022 Declaring Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By Ito, Ward-1(1), Thiruvananthapuram (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 21.03.2024 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 6,12,03,924/- By Holding That The Appellant Could Not Furnish Evidence In Support Of The Expenditure Incurred On Commission, Etc. & Treated The Same As Unexplained Expenditure U/S. 69C Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 44ASection 69C

Divya Profile Trading, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9(1), Pune

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

ITA 180/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.180/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Divya Profile Trading, Vs. Ito, Ward- 9(1), Pune. Gat No.77, Joytiba Nagar, Near Bhalekar Chowk, Talawade, Pune- 412114. Pan : Aanfd0876A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri S. Sadananda Singh Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 02.12.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2022-23 Framed On 27.02.2024 By The Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Addition Of Rs 3,31,667/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Fees Under Gst For Late Payment. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Addition Of Rs 4,11,821/- In Respect Of Income Tax Without Appreciating That No Deduction Of The Same Has Been Claimed By The Appellant. 3. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Addition Of Rs 21,52,441/- In Respect Of Remuneration Paid To Partners.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44A