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 Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained as assessee has proved the source of funds for purchase of land made in earlier assessment year. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Kolkata sets aside ex-parte CIT(A) order on unexplained demonetization cash deposit against Akanksha Enterprises, allowing a fresh hearing based on natural justice.
Madras High Court stays penalty orders under Sections 270A and 271AAC against Aadhitya Property Developers, pending a decision on the assessee’s belated appeal against the core assessment order.
ITAT Ahmedabad sets aside CIT(A) order, sending back case of Tosifbhai Tajdin Halani to AO for fresh assessment on unexplained cash, gifts, and expenditure.
Understand the consequences of an adverse income tax order, including high tax rates, penalties, interest, and steps to appeal or seek relief.
ITAT Pune held that application of cash received from unrecorded cash sales needs verification since assessee claims that it is applied for giving advance to the farmers for purchase of raw material and also for expansion of the existing showroom.
ITAT Surat held that provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are enacted on 15.12.2016 hence taxing addition at higher rate u/s. 115BBE for prior period is not sustainable. Accordingly, AO directed to tax addition at normal rate of tax.
Assessee had received Rs. 13.36 crores by cheque/RTGS out of total cash deposit of Rs.24.35 crores in bank account of M/s R. S. Traders during demonetization period. During the survey, several documents and evidences were collected and impounded.
ITAT Ahmedabad addressed unexplained cash deposits during demonetization in Jaisinghani vs. ITO, focusing on Sec. 69A and 115BBE.
ITAT Delhi orders deletion of ₹26.35 lakh addition on cash deposits during demonetization but upholds ₹7.52 lakh addition for unreconciled purchases.
