Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
The ITAT considered a case involving Penalty u/s 271B for not auditing books as per section 44AB. The Assessee argued books were not updated by the due date for audit under 44AB. The ITAT found the Assessee did not file returns u/s 139(1) and only did so after a notice u/s 148, indicating books were not updated timely. As per legal precedents, non-maintenance of accounts attracts penalty u/s 271A, not 271B. The ITAT ruled in favor of the Assessee, stating failure to maintain books by the due date u/s 139(1) absolved them from penalty u/s 271B for not auditing accounts. The contention that books were updated later was dismissed.
The ITAT considered a case involving Penalty u/s 271B for not auditing books as per section 44AB. The Assessee argued books were not updated by the due date for audit under 44AB. The ITAT found the Assessee did not file returns u/s 139(1) and only did so after a notice u/s 148, indicating books were not updated timely. As per legal precedents, non-maintenance of accounts attracts penalty u/s 271A, not 271B. The ITAT ruled in favor of the Assessee, stating failure to maintain books by the due date u/s 139(1) absolved them from penalty u/s 271B for not auditing accounts. The contention that books were updated later was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
