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

Mahendrakumar Gulraj Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1120/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1120/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mahendrakumar Gulraj Jain बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(3) Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, C/O D. C. Bothra & Co. Vs. Llp (Formerly Known As Matru Mandir, Tardeo D.C. Bothra & Co.) 297, Road, Mumbai-400007. Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpj2988D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajkumar Singh Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.03.2023 For Ay. 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing 12.50% Of Purchases Amounting Of Rs.2,16,63,455/- Made From Two (2) Dealers (M/S. Anand Deep Metal & M/S. Viraj Steel & Alloys). 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Had Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 15.09.2010 For Ay. 2010-11 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,39,169/-. & The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 23.03.2016. The Ao Noted That He Received An Information From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai From Which He Understood

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 44A

M/S Aban Singapore Pte Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITTPA 38/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathai.T.(Tp)A. No.38/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Aban Singapore Pte Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O P. Murali & Co., Vs. Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, International Tax 1(1), Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. Chennai. [Pan: Aaqca2845Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Sasikumar, Cit For : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 12.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20 In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 30.06.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Intl Tax 11) & Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To General As Ao Is Bad Both In The Eyes Of Law & On Facts.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 28Section 40Section 43Section 44BSection 90

M/S.Aban Singapore Pte Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(1), Chennai

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

ITTPA 13/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathai.T.(Tp)A. No.13/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Aban Singapore Pte Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O P. Murali & Co., Vs. Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, International Tax 1(1), Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. Chennai. [Pan: Aaqca2845Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Sasikumar, Cit For : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 09.02.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 23.01.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Intl Tax 1(1) & Chennai (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao') Is Bad Both In The Eve Of Law & On Facts.

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195(2)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 90