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 : 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 : ITAT Ahmedabad rules no tax on cash deposits from relatives if affidavits provided. Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala vs ITO case highligh...
Income Tax : Discover why ITAT Jodhpur ruled that cash deposits made by a 77-year-old assesse during demonetization couldn't be added under sec...
Income Tax : Read the full judgment/order of Madras High Court quashing an I-T assessment order adding Rs. 16Cr unexplained expenditure without...
Income Tax : In the case of Pukhraj Nathmal Jain Vs ITO, ITAT Mumbai deletes addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, as the source for deposits made...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata scrutinized the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and observed that the AO had not consider...
ITAT Ahmedabad rules no tax on cash deposits from relatives if affidavits provided. Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala vs ITO case highlights proper affidavit usage in tax assessments.
Discover why ITAT Jodhpur ruled that cash deposits made by a 77-year-old assesse during demonetization couldn’t be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Read the full judgment/order of Madras High Court quashing an I-T assessment order adding Rs. 16Cr unexplained expenditure without reasonable time. Portal reopening ordered.
In the case of Pukhraj Nathmal Jain Vs ITO, ITAT Mumbai deletes addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, as the source for deposits made during demonetisation period was substantiated.
ITAT Kolkata scrutinized the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and observed that the AO had not considered the stamp duty valuation of the property on the date of agreement, which was in 2015. As per the proviso to the section, the stamp duty value on the date of agreement should have been taken into account.
Ashley Cherian’s writ challenging Income Tax orders under section 271AAC dismissed by Kerala HC due to failure to produce documents. Details here.
Read the detailed analysis of CPF (India) Private Limited Vs ACIT case where Madras High Court annulled assessment proceedings due to violation of Sec 144B procedure.
Delhi High Court held that as revenue has failed to lodge the claim with the Resolution Professional, they cannot enforce the impugned orders and notices, given the binding nature of approved Resolution Plan.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unjustified as source of cash deposit on account of sale of petrol, diesel and other petroleum products duly proved.
ITAT Mumbai held that cash sales accepted and then deposit of said cash in bank account cannot be treated as deposits made out of any undisclosed income. Accordingly, addition under section 68 unsustainable.
