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 ITAT held that the PCIT incorrectly invoked Section 263 to substitute the AO’s plausible view, ruling that a business disallowance under Section 37(1) does not automatically become deemed income under Section 69C.
Gujarat High Court held that assessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without granting opportunity of personal hearing is not tenable. Accordingly, the order is quashed and appeal is allowed.
Rejecting the petitioner’s request to keep recovery in abeyance, the Madras HC directed the assessee to comply with the mandatory 20% pre-deposit for AY 2019-2020. Failure to pay will result in the initiation of coercive recovery measures.
ITAT restored a disallowance of ₹18.76 Cr under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194Q to CIT(A), granting assessee a fresh opportunity. Mumbai ITAT remanded a tax appeal concerning substantial business purchases, directing CIT(A) to hear assessee on merits for non-compliance.
ITAT Jaipur quashed an addition of Rs.14.47 lakh made under Section 69A because the assessment was framed by a Jaipur-based AO who lacked territorial jurisdiction over the assessee residing in Sri Ganganagar. The Tribunal ruled that the objection to jurisdiction, raised by the assessee and unrebutted by the Revenue, renders the entire assessment order void ab initio.
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.
