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...
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld ₹59.9 lakh addition from demonetisation-period cash deposits and GP estimation, confirming the rejection of unverifiable books due to abnormal sales and fraudulent stock.
ITAT held that cash deposited during demonetization was fully backed by prior withdrawals exceeding ₹47 lakh. The ruling confirms that demonstrated cash availability defeats Section 68 additions.
The tax authority’s assessment and penalty were set aside as the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to submit documents or Rule 46A application. The court emphasized adherence to natural justice before rejecting section 54F claims.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unexplained cash deposit during demonetization under section 68 without rejection of books of accounts is unwarranted. Further, addition is also not warranted as genuineness of cash sale duly proved.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained investment cannot be added without confronting the assessee with the Koinex transaction data relied upon by the AO. Matter remanded for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority failed to pass a reasoned order under Section 250(6) and remanded the case for fresh consideration, directing that proper opportunity be given to the assessee.
ITAT held that most jewellery seized during a search could be accounted for from declared drawings and past income, reducing addition to ₹72.45 lakh. Ruling emphasizes that unexplained investment must be proven in relevant assessment year.
ITAT restored penalties under Sections 271AAC and 270A after noting CIT(A) dismissed appeal without hearing assessee. Case highlights necessity of providing a fair opportunity before imposing penalties.
Reassessment proceedings initiated without obtaining prior approval from the appropriate “specified authority” under Section 151(ii) such as the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Director General were invalid.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unsecured loan cannot be sustained since identity of lenders, creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of loan transaction duly proved. Accordingly, CIT(A) order upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
