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

M/S Bansal Pathways P Ltd, Bhopal vs. CIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 105/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradिनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2015-16 वष" M/S. Star Delta Transformers Ltd, Pr. Commissioner Of 92A, Industrial Area, Vs Income-Tax-1, Bhopal Govindpura, Bhopal-462023 Pan : Aaccs 0399 D "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2015-16 वष" M/S. Bansal Pathways Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Tawa Complex, Vs Income-Tax-1, Bhopal Bittan Market, E-5 Arera Colony, Bhopal-462016 Pan : Aaecb 7980 M "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Khabya, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.S. Matri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17 /08/2021 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: The Present Two Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of Separate Assessees Against The Orders Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax- 1, Bhopal Dated 27.12.2019 In The Case Of M/S. Bansal Pathways Pvt Ltd & Dated 15.01.2020 In The Case Of M/S. Star Delta Transformers Ltd., Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16 (For Both Assessees), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. Ita Nos. 100 & 105/Ind/2020 Star Delta Transforers Ltd & Bansal Pathways Pvt Ltd Ay : 2015-16 2

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Khabya, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Matri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

M/S. Star Delta Transformers Ltd., 2015-16 vs. Pr. CIT -1, Bhopal

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 100/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradिनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2015-16 वष" M/S. Star Delta Transformers Ltd, Pr. Commissioner Of 92A, Industrial Area, Vs Income-Tax-1, Bhopal Govindpura, Bhopal-462023 Pan : Aaccs 0399 D "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2015-16 वष" M/S. Bansal Pathways Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Tawa Complex, Vs Income-Tax-1, Bhopal Bittan Market, E-5 Arera Colony, Bhopal-462016 Pan : Aaecb 7980 M "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Khabya, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.S. Matri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17 /08/2021 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: The Present Two Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of Separate Assessees Against The Orders Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax- 1, Bhopal Dated 27.12.2019 In The Case Of M/S. Bansal Pathways Pvt Ltd & Dated 15.01.2020 In The Case Of M/S. Star Delta Transformers Ltd., Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16 (For Both Assessees), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. Ita Nos. 100 & 105/Ind/2020 Star Delta Transforers Ltd & Bansal Pathways Pvt Ltd Ay : 2015-16 2

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Khabya, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Matri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

Shri Kana Ram Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1377/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1377/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kana Ram Kumawat, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. “Wisdom”, 23 Purohit Ji Baas, Ward- 2(1), Hawa Sarak, Laxmi Dharm Kanta Jaipur. Gali End, 22 Godam, Jaipur- 302006. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahcpk 0149 H Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Anil Kaushik (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 11/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S 148/144 By Ld. Ao Is Illegal & Bad In Law & Is Invalid Abinitio. 2. The Assessee Has Filed His Income Tax Return On Time, Obtained The Tax Audit Report On Time & The Return So Filed Was Processed & Refund Was Granted By The Department Which Is Duly Posted In 26As By The Department, Despite That Reassessment Proceedings Were Initiated For The Reason That The Assessee Did Not File His Itr, Thus The Very Basis Of Selection Of The Case For Reassessment U/S 147/148 Of The Act Is Ill Founded, Grossly Incorrect & False & In Contradiction With The Facts Available With The Department, Hence, The Reassessment Proceedings

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kaushik (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(JCIT)
Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A