https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438824 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the penalty imposed under section 271B of the I.T. Act, 1961, was unjust as the appellant's turnover did not exceed the threshold limit for audit under section 44AB. Despite the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) levying the penalty, the tribunal determined that the penalty lacked basis and was unjustified. Supporting documents confirmed the appellant's role as a commission agent for M/s. Anika Bajaj, leading to the deletion of the penalty. en-us Wed, 07 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jun 2023 08:56:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438824 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the penalty imposed under section 271B of the I.T. Act, 1961, was unjust as the appellant's turnover did not exceed the threshold limit for audit under section 44AB. Despite the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) levying the penalty, the tribunal determined that the penalty lacked basis and was unjustified. Supporting documents confirmed the appellant's role as a commission agent for M/s. Anika Bajaj, leading to the deletion of the penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438824