Section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271AAC(1) is Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (348 ITR 7), cited in 50 of the 593 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1)

Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd.
348 ITR 7 · 2012 · Supreme Court
50
citing judgments

The law of limitation applies to all, including the government. Condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a party to demonstrate sufficient, bona fide, and reasonable cause, as courts should not condone delays mechanically or for routine explanations, gross negligence, or inaction.

Sunder Carpet Industries v. ITO
324 ITR 417 · 2010 · High Court
30
citing judgments

A Departmental Valuer's Report constitutes material for forming a belief of escaped income, validating reassessment proceedings.

Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. T. Rangroopchand Chordia
26 Taxmann.com 54 · 2012 · High Court
29
citing judgments

An assessment completed under an incorrect section of the Income Tax Act is considered to be in favour of the assessee.

CIT v. General Insurance Corporation
286 ITR 232 · 2006 · Supreme Court
27
citing judgments

The Supreme Court case CIT v. General Insurance Corporation (286 ITR 232) is cited for the proposition that it dealt with the issue of bonus shares, and therefore may not be applicable to cases involving the increase of authorized share capital.

CIT v. Shadiram Balmukund
84 ITR 183 · 1972 · High Court
24
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings are vitiated if the Assessing Officer's satisfaction is not based on the order passed by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The jurisdiction to impose penalty rests with the authority that is satisfied about the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd.
118 ITR 1 · 1979 · Supreme Court
21
citing judgments
(iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
13 DTR 371 · 2008 · Reported
15
citing judgments
Dr. K.M. Mehaboob v. DCIT
130 Taxmann.com 130 · 2021 · High Court
12
citing judgments
Emphasis1 Supplied) (iii) In K. K. Seshaiyer v. CIT
246 ITR 351 · 2000 · High Court
11
citing judgments
MS Poonam Industries v. CIT
178 Taxmann 319 · 2009 · Reported
8
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 271AAC(1)

Showing 120 of 593 · Page 1 of 30

...
Section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act — Case Laws | BharatTax