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

Ramanlal K Darji, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7103/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7103/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Ramanlal K. Darji बिधम/ Ito 19(3)(1)/Cit(A)-5 Shakti Steel, Corporation, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 2601, Rushabh Appartment, Churchgate, Mumbai- Dr. Parekh Road, Opp. 400020. Reliance Hospital, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapd7791D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.01.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2005- 06. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Condonation Of Delay: The Appeal Order Was Collected From Post Office On 14/12/2014 Which Was Immediately Forwarded To The Chartered Accountant For Filing Of An Appeal. But The

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani (Ar)For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271Section 44ASection 68

D. Krishnaram, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 7 (3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3215/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3215/Chny/2019 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri. Dwaraknath Krishnaram Income Tax Officer, “Sai Sri Saraswathi” Non Corporate Ward – 7(3), Flat No.5, Vivek Apartments, Vs. Nungambakkam High Road, 3Rd Floor, Building New No.9, Chennai – 600 034. I-Block, 1St Main Road, Anna Nagar East, Chennai – 600 102 [Pan: Ahvpk 3978P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai In Ita No.7/Cit(A)-7/2018-19 Dated 30.09.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015- 16 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. :- 2 -: 2. Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ms. R. Anitha, Jcit Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT
Section 271BSection 44A

Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2864/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2863 & 2864/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited, 167, Poonamallee Income Tax High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaact2395J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai Both Dated 29.08.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 271B As Well As 271F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Filed Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271B Of The Act For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2863/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2863 & 2864/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited, 167, Poonamallee Income Tax High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaact2395J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai Both Dated 29.08.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 271B As Well As 271F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Filed Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271B Of The Act For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A