https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35638 The Explanation added to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was treated as a deliberate change in penalty law, creating an objective test where returned income is below 80 per cent of assessed income. In such cases, rebuttable presumptions arise that the assessed income is correct and that the shortfall resulted from fraud or gross or wilful neglect, shifting the burden to the assessee to rebut them on a preponderance of evidence. The earlier rule in Anwar Ali under the 1922 Act was held inapplicable to the amended provision, which operates as a rule of evidence in civil penalty proceedings. en-us Fri, 12 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Oct 2025 13:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35638 The Explanation added to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was treated as a deliberate change in penalty law, creating an objective test where returned income is below 80 per cent of assessed income. In such cases, rebuttable presumptions arise that the assessed income is correct and that the shortfall resulted from fraud or gross or wilful neglect, shifting the burden to the assessee to rebut them on a preponderance of evidence. The earlier rule in Anwar Ali under the 1922 Act was held inapplicable to the amended provision, which operates as a rule of evidence in civil penalty proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35638