Section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act pertains to the penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. It imposes a penalty on taxpayers who have deliberately under-reported or misreported their income to evade tax liabilities. The section specifies the amount of penalty and provides guidelines on the imposition and calculation of the penalty. Understanding Section 271AAC is crucial for taxpayers to accurately report their income and comply with tax regulations to avoid penalties and legal consequences. This description provides an overview of Section 271AAC and its implications for under-reporting and misreporting of income under the Income Tax Act.
Income Tax : Learn about penalty provisions under the IT Act, including penalties for defaults in tax payment, income reporting, and more. Key ...
Income Tax : It is proposed to amend the sections 271AAB, 271AAC and 271AAD by enabling the Commissioner (Appeals) to levy penalty under these ...
Income Tax : Understand the penalty provisions of Section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act. Learn about the consequences of income determined under...
Income Tax : Explore amendments to section 253 of Income-tax Act, adjusting time limits for filing appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal...
Income Tax : AO observed that Wealth Tax Act was already abolished from financial year 2015-16, and the details of the assets were now required...
Income Tax : The assessment order was framed in which the AO made certain additions in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act r...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowances on account of excess contribution to PF deleted since the same didn’t exceed 27% of the s...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad upheld part of the unexplained investment addition for Rs. 79.35 lakh in Bhavin V. Maniar's case, allowing time for...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit set aside as no additions made in ...
AO observed that Wealth Tax Act was already abolished from financial year 2015-16, and the details of the assets were now required to be filed in the Income-tax Return for the assessment year.
The assessment order was framed in which the AO made certain additions in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,05,00,477/- as unexplained income of the assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowances on account of excess contribution to PF deleted since the same didn’t exceed 27% of the salary and wages in terms of rule 87 of the Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld part of the unexplained investment addition for Rs. 79.35 lakh in Bhavin V. Maniar’s case, allowing time for further documentation.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit set aside as no additions made in the hands of investors confirms genuineness of investor and hence investment cannot be stated as bogus in hands of company.
The assessee is an NRI. During the demonetization period, the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.6,00,000/- each in his bank account. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the AO questioned the source of these cash deposits.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that dismissal of appeal and passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A) in absence of any response on behalf of the assessee untenable since CIT(A) failed to decide the case on merits.
Karnataka High Court held that since rectification application was filed before passing of final assessment order, DRP ought to have waited till disposal of rectification application. Thus, final assessment order liable to be set aside.
It was held that assessee to provide concrete evidence establishing the genuineness of the cash deposits in accordance with CBDT Circular wherein the various instructions had been issued by CBDT dated 21.2.2017, 3.3.2017, 15.11.2017 & 9.8.2019.
ITAT Mumbai held that invocation of revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 justified as AO was fully ignorant about verification of unsecure loan and addition of 10% unsecured loan by AO was baseless hence assessment order turned out to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
