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

Income Tax Officer, Ayakar Bhawan vs. Kudu Industries Limited, Bxxxii

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1082/CHANDI/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1082/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito Kudu Industries Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Rishi Nagar 141001 1106/2, Rahon Road Turn Gahlewal, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaack-7405-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca) & Ms. Muskan Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ars Appellant By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 30-08-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.12.2019. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.82.16 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment Order. Having Heard Vehement Arguments & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disoposed- Off As Under.

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

Indumati Hp Gas Gramin Vitrak, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1362/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1362/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Indumati Hp Gas Gramin Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Vitrak, Kolhapur. A/P Kasaba Beed, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur- 416011. Pan : Aaffi4054H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Nikhil S. Pathak & : Shri Mayuresh Doshi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.04.2024 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 & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3,02,29,400/- U/S 69A Of The Act When The Assessee Has Explained The Sources Of The Amount Deposited. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3,02,29,400/- As Entire Amount Deposited In Bank Without Considering The Withdrawals From The Bank Account.

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

Subbaiah Vairamani, Madurai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Madurai

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

ITA 2380/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2380/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subbaiah Vairamani, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 134, North Market Street, Income Tax, Madurai 625 001. Corporate Circle 1, [Pan:Abrpv9397H] Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. & Shri R.S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 24 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A., &For Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68