TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Nullifies Rs. 1.50 Lakh Penalty, Confirms Section 44AB Inapplicable for Exempt Income u/s 10.</h1> <h3>Piramal Enterprises Limited Versus Income Tax Officer-7 (3) (3), Mumbai.</h3> Piramal Enterprises Limited Versus Income Tax Officer-7 (3) (3), Mumbai. - TMI Issues:Challenge to penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for not getting accounts audited under section 44AB.Analysis:The appellant challenged the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for not getting its accounts audited under section 44AB. The appellant, who had earned dividend income and claimed it as exempt under section 10(34) of the Act, argued that since the only income during the year was dividend income, there was no requirement to audit the accounts under section 44AB. The AO considered the dividend income as 'business receipts' due to the appellant's investment activity. The appellant relied on a decision by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, which held that section 44AB would not apply when there was no income falling under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession' after claiming exemption under section 10 of the Act.The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the appellant's claim of dividend income as exempt in the assessment order. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and a Mumbai Tribunal case, the Tribunal held that section 44AB is not applicable when the income is exempt under section 10 and does not fall under 'profits and gains of business or profession.' Therefore, the penalty under section 271B was deemed not leviable in the present case, leading to the direction to delete the penalty imposed by the AO. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and directing the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakhs imposed under section 271B for the relevant year.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that when income is exempt under section 10 and does not pertain to profits and gains of business or profession, the provisions of section 44AB do not apply, and consequently, the penalty under section 271B is not applicable. The decision was based on established legal precedents and interpretations of relevant sections of the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
