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 : This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the appli...
Income Tax : Understand the consequences of an adverse income tax order, including high tax rates, penalties, interest, and steps to appeal or ...
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 : The Tribunal ruled that an Investigation Wing report alone cannot justify an addition under Section 68 without independent verific...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that an omnibus satisfaction note without identifying year-wise incriminating material or its relevance to the...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that Section 69A could not be invoked as the director was not the owner of the unaccounted cash generated through ov...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271AAC could not be decided independently when the underlying assessment had already be...
Income Tax : The Court held that the assessee failed to produce any written or registered document proving transfer of property to the firm. Co...
The Tribunal ruled that an Investigation Wing report alone cannot justify an addition under Section 68 without independent verification by the Assessing Officer. It upheld the genuineness of the share transactions based on documentary evidence produced by the assessee.
This guide explains when penalties can be imposed under various provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also outlines the applicable penalty amounts for different types of tax defaults and compliance failures.
The ITAT Delhi held that an omnibus satisfaction note without identifying year-wise incriminating material or its relevance to the assessee’s income cannot sustain proceedings under Section 153C. The assessments were consequently quashed without examining the merits of the additions.
The ITAT held that Section 69A could not be invoked as the director was not the owner of the unaccounted cash generated through over-invoicing. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition while affirming that the company owned the cash.
The ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271AAC could not be decided independently when the underlying assessment had already been remanded for fresh adjudication. The penalty issue was restored to the AO for reconsideration after completion of quantum proceedings.
The Court held that the assessee failed to produce any written or registered document proving transfer of property to the firm. Consequently, the challenge to the assessment proceedings was rejected, leaving the assessee to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the enhanced 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be imposed on income relating to FY 2016-17. The Court emphasized that the amendment expressly took effect from 01.04.2017 and operates prospectively.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period could not be fully treated as unexplained money when supported by sales records and books of account. However, as the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the abnormal increase in cash sales before demonetization, the Tribunal sustained only a lump-sum addition of ₹10 lakh. The ruling emphasizes balanced evaluation of evidence in demonetization-related assessments.
Mumbai ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid because approval was obtained from the Principal CIT instead of the prescribed higher authority under Section 151. The reassessment proceedings and assessment order were quashed.
ITAT Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
