https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419583 The court allowed the petition, quashing the order rejecting the revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It held that the petitioner's accounts did not require auditing under Section 44AB for the A.Y.-2017-2018 return of income. The court distinguished partnership firm income from individual business income, supporting the petitioner's argument and emphasizing the mutual exclusivity of Section 44AB clauses for business and profession. The judgment clarified the interpretation of Section 44AB and the definition of profession under the Act, providing a favorable outcome for the petitioner. en-us Wed, 09 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Mar 2022 16:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419583 The court allowed the petition, quashing the order rejecting the revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It held that the petitioner's accounts did not require auditing under Section 44AB for the A.Y.-2017-2018 return of income. The court distinguished partnership firm income from individual business income, supporting the petitioner's argument and emphasizing the mutual exclusivity of Section 44AB clauses for business and profession. The judgment clarified the interpretation of Section 44AB and the definition of profession under the Act, providing a favorable outcome for the petitioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419583