Case Law Details
Case Name : Bandenawaz Mulla Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Bangalore
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
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 that the assessee had not maintained books of account, making it unnecessary to conduct an audit under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. The...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
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
The ITO could have imposed penalty U/s 271A for not maintaining bóoks of accounts. ITO erred in imposing the penalty u/s 271B.