434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB), Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT

462 ITR 307High Court#25069 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 274 Section 144 Section 14A Section 254 Section 80IC Section 94(7)

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27

Judgments citing 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB), Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT

Unipatch Rubber Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 25(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4439/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Unipatch Rubber Limited, Dcit/Acit, Building No.10, Community Centre, Vs. Circle 25(1), Saket, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aaacu0325P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250oSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80ISection 94(7)

…he Act dated 29.06.2023 also mentioned both these aspects. It was pointed out that ultimately the penalty was levied on the basis of “inaccurate particulars”. The Ld. AR relied on the case of PCIT vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2024] 2 462 ITR 307 (Del.). It was pointed out that this matter travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the SLP was also dismissed [469 ITR 394] (SC). The Ld. AR read out from various portions of this judgment. 2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 3. We have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the r…

Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1579/DEL/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1579/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 बनाम Mr. Ravinder Kumar Jain, Dcit, H 82, South Extension, Part-1, Vs. Central Circle 07, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aalpj7172P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…the law. It is submitted that the AO has not specifically pointed out the specific limb in which the penalty is likely to be imposed. - 432 ITR 84 (Del), PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB), Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT - 462 ITR 307 (Del), PCIT vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. (SLP dismissed in 300 Taxman 585 (SC)). 7. Ld. Counsel submitted that as far as the other two items amounting to Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- are concerned, the Assessing Officer in fresh assessment proceedings had not initiated any penalty proceedings. So much so, in fresh assessment orde…

Vitasta Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 17(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1565/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…articulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT V Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt Ltd 166 taxmann.com 135(SC) has dismissed the SLP against PCIT V Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt Ltd 462 ITR 307(Del) where the hon’ble Delhi High Court held the penalty as unsustainable where limbs are not specified. 12. Considering the facts of the case in totality, in the light of judicial decisions referred to hereinabove, we set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. Page 5 of 7 ITA No. 1565/D…