Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Bandenawaz Mulla Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Bandenawaz Mulla Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Introduction: The case involves Bandenawaz Mulla, who filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 without maintaining books of account. The assessing officer (AO) imposed a penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for the assessee’s failure to get the books audited. The case was appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore.

Analysis: The ITAT Bangalore considered the fact th

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

2 Comments

  1. Nilesh Deshmukh says:

    If the Contract Receipts are of Rs 12,80,43,795/- vide Section 44AB on turnover basis, assessee needs to gets his accounts audited, then why penalty cannot be charged by the assessee. Please explain

    1. Panchsheel Mehta says:

      The ITO could have imposed penalty U/s 271A for not maintaining bóoks of accounts. ITO erred in imposing the penalty u/s 271B.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
March 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31