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 confirmed the addition of ₹19.27 lakh under Section 69A after finding that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence explaining the source of cash deposits. The explanation regarding gold loans and family transactions remained unsubstantiated.
ITAT Delhi held that recording a single satisfaction note for multiple assessment years violates Section 153C requirements. As no year-specific incriminating material was identified, the assessments were quashed along with the related penalty.
The Tribunal ruled that amounts received were repayments of past advances and could not be taxed as unexplained cash credits in the current year. Additions were deleted as they did not pertain to fresh transactions.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessment order was invalid as it was not served in accordance with Section 282 and Rule 127. In absence of proof of proper service within limitation, the entire assessment was quashed as void.
The reassessment was challenged for want of proper approval. The Tribunal ruled that ritualistic sanction under Section 151 defeats jurisdiction and renders the reopening void.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were held to be business receipts already recorded as sales in audited books. The tribunal ruled that taxing the same receipts again under Section 68 amounts to double taxation.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were treated as unexplained as no genuine business need for holding large idle cash was shown. The tribunal upheld the Section 68 addition, stressing proof of necessity and cash retention.
The issue was whether cash deposited during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained money. The Tribunal held that prior withdrawals from the bank sufficiently explained the deposits, warranting deletion of the addition.
ITAT Chennai held that section 197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016 cannot be invoked since Form 2 as contemplated under Income Declaration Scheme not served. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69A made in assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of additions where loan repayments were sourced from stock sales and fresh loans. It ruled that without rejecting books or disproving records, section 68 cannot be invoked.
