https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783744 The dominant issue was whether penalty under s. 271B could be sustained for failure to obtain a tax audit report when the assessee's turnover/gross receipts did not attract s. 44AB. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 452 dated 17-03-1986, binding on the Revenue, the ITAT held the assessee was akin to a kachha arahtia/broker, with only brokerage constituting gross receipts, and the brokerage income did not exceed the statutory threshold. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to tax audit under s. 44AB, and the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 under s. 271B was deleted; the appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 07:49:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783744 The dominant issue was whether penalty under s. 271B could be sustained for failure to obtain a tax audit report when the assessee's turnover/gross receipts did not attract s. 44AB. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 452 dated 17-03-1986, binding on the Revenue, the ITAT held the assessee was akin to a kachha arahtia/broker, with only brokerage constituting gross receipts, and the brokerage income did not exceed the statutory threshold. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to tax audit under s. 44AB, and the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 under s. 271B was deleted; the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783744