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 : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
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 issue was whether income from hybrid seed production on leased land qualifies as agricultural income. The Tribunal held that o...
Income Tax : The issue was whether addition can be made based on third-party investigation findings. The Tribunal held that without direct incr...
Income Tax : ITAT set aside the addition made under Section 68 due to incomplete verification of a large gift transaction. It remanded the case...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that where unaccounted purchases are found and the corresponding sales are not doubted, only the profit element ...
Income Tax : The tribunal examined whether penalties could continue when the fresh assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating ...
Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, documentation, and TDS/TCS compliance with prescribed penalty amounts.
Bombay High Court sets aside NFAC’s ₹27.91 crore assessment on KMG Wires Pvt. Ltd., citing non-consideration of key evidence and AI-based reliance on non-existent case law.
The Delhi ITAT deleted a Rs.18.01 lakh penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1), holding that once the underlying assessment order is set aside, the consequential penalty order cannot survive. The Tribunal clarified that the AO may initiate fresh penalty proceedings only after framing a new assessment with additions.
The ITAT Delhi partly deleted an addition for alleged bogus purchases, ruling that since the books of account were not rejected and the profit element from corresponding sales was already offered to tax, taxing 12.5% of the bogus purchase value constituted double taxation. The Tribunal finally restricted the addition to an agreed-upon amount of Rs.4,00,000.
$\text{Karnataka \text{ HC}$ quashes AY 2018-19 reassessment and penalty, ruling that Section 148A(b) notice granting only $\text{5 \text{ days}$ to respond violated the mandatory “not less than seven days” rule.
ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of Air Con Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., deleting a ₹62,00,000 addition made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The addition was based solely on notings in an undated loose paper seized from a third party’s residence.
Technicalities Cannot Defeat Substantial Justice: ITAT Allows Delayed Appeal of Rural Senior Citizen- Email Notices Ignored by 74-Year-Old HUF Kartha – ITAT Bangalore Grants Relief & Restores Matter to NFAC
Where the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted international transactions at arm’s length without proposing any variation under Section 92CA(3), assessee did not qualify as an “eligible assessee” under Section 144C(15)(b).
The ITAT Visakhapatnam has partly allowed the appeal of Vallabhai Patel Kottapalli, an agriculturist, by restricting the tax rate on an unexplained cash deposit to 30% in-stead of 60%.
Tribunal remanded case to AO, allowing assessee to substantiate capital introduced from sale of agricultural lands with proper documents like patta, chitta, and adangal.
