https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58623 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that it operated as a Kutcha Arhatia and was not required to undergo audit under section 44AB of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal overturned the penalties imposed for not getting its accounts audited, stating that the assessee's business model as a commission agent did not involve trading activities that necessitated audit. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for both assessment years, directing that no penalties be levied on the assessee under section 271B. en-us Thu, 30 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:27:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58623 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that it operated as a Kutcha Arhatia and was not required to undergo audit under section 44AB of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal overturned the penalties imposed for not getting its accounts audited, stating that the assessee's business model as a commission agent did not involve trading activities that necessitated audit. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for both assessment years, directing that no penalties be levied on the assessee under section 271B. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58623