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

Jayshree Bhalchandra Gutal, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Solapur

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

ITA 897/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.897/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jayshree Bhalchandra Gutal, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Bhalu Kumkum, Plot Solapur. No.1228, A/P Kem, Karmala, Solapur- 413223. Pan : Ahzpg6709J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 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) Erred In Passing An Exparte Order Without Granting Sufficient Opportunity To The Appellant. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Assessing Officer Erred In Invoking The Provision Of Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Cash Deposits Without Taking Cognizance Of The Fact That The Cash Deposits Have Been Duly Recorded In The Books Of Accounts Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

Raka Singh, Lucknow vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Lucknow, Lucknow

ITA 361/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.361/Lkw/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Raka Singh. D-11, 12, Industrial Estate, Nr Gazipur, Tirahamau, Mau. Pan: Bbqps5727J . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Lucknow . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : None [Adjournment Rejected] Revenue By : Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Against The Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057011178(1) Dt. 12/10/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] The Assessee Filed The Present Appeal U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’]. 2. The Case Was Called Thrice, None Appeared At The Bequest Of The Assessee. After Primary Briefing From The Revenue, We Deem It Fit To Reject The Adjournment Request & Proceed To Adjudicate The Matter Ex- Parte U/R 24 Of Itat Rules, 1963. 3. Tersely Stated Facts Borne Out Of The Case Records Are That;

For Appellant: None [Adjournment Rejected]For Respondent: Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 44A