How many judgments cite Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT?

405 judgments on BharatTax cite Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT (434 ITR 1), spanning 2021 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 143(3), Section 270A, Section 153A, Section 250.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

434 ITR 1High Court2021#173 most cited

What is Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT authority for?

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

405

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · defective penalty notice · non-striking off irrelevant limb · non-specification of charge · omnibus notice · vagueness · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty quashed

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 143(3)Section 270A Section 153A Section 250 Section 147 Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(8)section 271(l)record date section 271(l)(c)section 274 section 270a(9)furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income concealment of income non-application of mind penalty proceedings initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

HITESH JAYANTILAL MEHTA(HUF),KALBADEVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(1)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8369/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ayush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)

…harges, i.e., concealment of particulars of 4 income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v/s CIT, reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.), wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Court has held that the defect in notice by not striking off the irrelevant matter would vitiate the penalty proceedings. 9. It is further evident from the record that the AO made the addition on account of bogus purchases on an estimated basis of 12.5%, which was affirmed by the learned CIT(A) in qu…

DAZZLER CONFECTIONERY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8411/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sarda, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

…er section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by relying on various judgments, however, it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB) and 6 Dazzler Confectionery Company, Private Limited, various other judgments of the jurisdictional Benches of the Tribunal, including in the case of Korbusier Kinema Private Limited, Juhu vs. NFAC ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), ITA No. 1016/M/2025, decided on 01.05.2025 wherein, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal not only consid…

AMBER CORPORATION,KALYAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8373/MUM/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR. DR.)

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…er section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by relying on various judgments, however, it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB) and various other judgments of the jurisdictional Benches of the Tribunal, including in the case of KorbusierKinema Private Limited, Juhu vs. NFAC ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), ITA No. 1016/M/2025, decided on 01.05.2025 wherein, the 5 Amber Corporation Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal not only considered the judgment of the Hon’b…

M/S.ALLIED DIGITAL SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the Assessee‟s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8147/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Allied Digital Services Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central 808, 8Th Floor, Mafatlal Centre, Circile 1(3), 905,9Th Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021. Old Cgo Building, Pan – Aaaca5509K Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The A.Y. 20101-11. 2. In The Instant Case, The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2013 Under Section 143 (3) R.W.S. 153(A) Of The Act Has Made The Additions Of Rs.5,35,91,882/- & Rs.1,25,66,049/- On Account Of Disallowances Under Section 69C Of The Act & Section 2 M/S. Allied Digital Services Limited

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…penalty levied on the basis of defective notice, as also issued in this case, is liable to be deleted/quashed. 5.1 The Assessee further relied on the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB). 5.2 The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee also raised the issue that as the addition has ultimately been sustained at the rate of 10% on estimation basis therefore, the penalty under consideration is also unsustainable, specifically in view of the latest judgment by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Principal Commi…

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

ITA 2743/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2741 To 2743/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Rr Industries Ltd., No.94/95, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaacr 3594 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : 11.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter In Short 'The Ld.Cit(A)'), Chennai-18, Dated 07.08.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short 'Ay') 2008-09 To 2010-11 Confirming The Penalty- Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). :: 2 ::

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…llowing case laws: 1. CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) 2. CIT, Bangalore Vs. SSA Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) 3. Babuji Jacob reported in 430 ITR 259 (Madras-HC) 4. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (FB) (Bom) (HC) 5. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the Ld.CIT(A) and has assailed the plea of the Ld.AR of the assessee for cancelling penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act was defective and invalid for the failure on the part of the AO not striking down the lim…

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

ITA 2742/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2741 To 2743/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Rr Industries Ltd., No.94/95, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaacr 3594 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : 11.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)'), Chennai-18, Dated 07.08.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2008-09 To 2010-11 Confirming The Penalty- Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). :: 2 ::

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2741/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…lowing case laws: 1. CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) 2. CIT, Bangalore Vs. SSA Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) 3. Babuji Jacob reported in 430 ITR 259 (Madras-HC) 4. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (FB) (Bom) (HC) 5. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the Ld.CIT(A) and has assailed the plea of the Ld.AR of the assessee for cancelling penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act was defective and invalid for the failure on the part of the AO not striking down the l…

M/S. M M BROTHERS,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 477/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the A.O. in the asst. order nor in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and therefore, the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed in the instant case was bad in law in view of the 2 law laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Mohd. Farhan Shaikh [434 ITR 1] and other decisions. 2. The assessee humbly prays that all the relevant facts pertaining to the legal issue raised in Ground No. 1 are already available on record and hence, the said issue may kindly be decided by Hon'ble ITAT without remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate this legal issue in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble J…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, DELHI vs. AMBIENCE HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/228/2025HC Delhi05 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Section 271(1)(c)

…basic ingredients for levy of penalty i.e. inaccurate particulars of income or concealment has not been recorded in the penalty order dated 27.01.2023, as held in the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT reported at 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (FB) and the judgment of this Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara Life Insurance Co. Ltd. reported as 432 ITR 82 (Del). This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 12:…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. AMBIENCE HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/230/2025HC Delhi05 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Section 271(1)(c)

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. AMBIENCE HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/229/2025HC Delhi05 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Section 271(1)(c)

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

ITA 7132/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A K Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…er section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by relying on various judgments, however, it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB) and various other judgments of the jurisdictional Benches of the Tribunal, including in the case of Korbusier Kinema Private Limited, ITA Nos.7130,7131,7132/M/2025 5 Chiragkumar Rajendrabhai Shah Juhu vs. NFAC ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), ITA No. 1016/M/2025, decided on 01.05.2025 wherein, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal no…

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

ITA 7131/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A K Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…er section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by relying on various judgments, however, it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB) and various other judgments of the jurisdictional Benches of the Tribunal, including in the case of Korbusier Kinema Private Limited, ITA Nos.7130,7131,7132/M/2025 5 Chiragkumar Rajendrabhai Shah Juhu vs. NFAC ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), ITA No. 1016/M/2025, decided on 01.05.2025 wherein, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal no…

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

ITA 7130/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A K Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…er section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by relying on various judgments, however, it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB) and various other judgments of the jurisdictional Benches of the Tribunal, including in the case of Korbusier Kinema Private Limited, ITA Nos.7130,7131,7132/M/2025 5 Chiragkumar Rajendrabhai Shah Juhu vs. NFAC ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), ITA No. 1016/M/2025, decided on 01.05.2025 wherein, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal no…

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 468/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 56(2)(vii)

…. PCIT vs. Blackrock Securities Pvt. Ltd., 2023(12) TMI 714 (Delhi High Court order dated 24.11.2023); (viii). PCIT vs. Times Global Broadcasting Ltd. 2025(3) TMI 229 (Bombay High Court – order dated 27.02.2025 (ix). Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay H.C.) (Full Bench - order dated 11.03.2021). (x). CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bombay HC – order dated 05.01.2017). 7. Learned DR for revenue has supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have gone through the penalty notice dated 24.11.2016 issued u/s. 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act, as placed…

JAYCO PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/DEL/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarjayco Promoters & Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd, Ward-13(3), C-5, Madhu Vihar, Patparganj, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcj7631E

For Appellant: Shri Vibhu Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ally mentioning the offence committed by the assessee, would become fatal to the penalty proceedings ? This issue is no longer res integra in view of the Full Bench Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) dated 11.3.2021. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereunder:- “Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff Case (supra) on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187 In Dilip N. Shroff case (s…

JOSEPH ABRAHAM PETER JOSEPH,MADURAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.M. Muriga Boopathy, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2722/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 v. Joseph Abraham Peter Joseph, The ITO, 9H Sharon, Pasumpon Street, Non Corporate Circle-2, St. Marutipandi Nagar, Madurai. Narimedu, Madurai-625 002. [PAN: AAYPJ 6586 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.M. Muriga Boopathy, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent b…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…ed [arising out of PCIT v. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P.) Ltd. reported in 272 Taxman 157 (Bom)] HIGH COURTS i) 432 ITR 84 (Del) Pr. CIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. ii) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory iii) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (FB) Mohd. Farhan A. sheikh v. DCIT iv) ITA No. 1154/2014 (Bom) dated 5.1.2017 CIT v. Shri Samson Perincherry v) 264 CTR 502 (Karn) CIT v. MWP Ltd. SLP dismissed by Apex Court in CC No. 7485/2014 vi) 370 ITR 475 (AP) CIT v. Lotus Constructions vii) 237 Taxman 702 (Kar) Safina Hotels (P) Ltd. v. CIT 9. THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND QUANTUM PROC…

INDIAN TOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTRE,JALANDHAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1) , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C.A

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 262/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Indian Tool Technology Centre, Vs. Income Tax Officer, G. T. Road, Pathankot Bye Pass, Ward 1(1), Jalandhar Jalandhar 144001, Punjab [PAN: AACCI 3668M] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, C.A. : Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D. R. Respondent by Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order o…

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)

…58,85,666/- was not the income concealed in the eyes of 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…

Showing 1–20 of 405 · Page 1 of 21

...