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

672 judgments on BharatTax cite Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT (434 ITR 1), spanning 2020 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#82 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.

672

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 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)

Read the full judgment

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Chakradhar Contractors and Engineers Private Limited, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1939/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

…c South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. ACIT [(2022) 443 ITR 186 (Del) (HC)]. 11. Kishor D. Patil v. ITO [ITA Nos.54 & 55/PUNE/2023] dated 30.03.2023. 12. PCIT v. Jehangir H. C. Jehangir [(2023) 155 taxmann.com 209 (Bom HC)]. 13. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT [434 ITR 1 (Bom)(HC)]. 6.1. He submitted that although the assessee has raised a ground before the Ld. CIT(A) that when profit is estimated, penalty cannot be levied u/sec.270A(9) of the Act, however, the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the same since he has already deleted the penalty for non-specification of the limb. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble…

Sushil Rajendra Kothari, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4734/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Revenue /For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 57

…nn.com 665]. 2. Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC [142 taxmann.com 38]. 3. Greenwoods Govt. officers Welfare Society v. DCIT [160 taxmann.com 105]. 4. Enrica Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [163 taxmann.com 105]. 5. Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. v. CIT [447 ITR 743]. 6. CIT v. Sonal Construction Co. [55 Taxmann.com 425].” 5. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that it cannot be held that since the assessee has accepted the disallowance there is no suppression. The DR further submitted that the AO in the penalty order has clearly stated that the assessee's case falling under 270A(9)(a) and therefore asses…

Del Monte Foods Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 9(1), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1749/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1749/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2007-08) Del Monte Foods P. Ltd., Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase Ii, New Delhi 110070 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacf-8488-N बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 9(1), Cr Building, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 18/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 27.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Shri Anil Bhalla, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessing Officer (Ao) Had Made Addition On Account Of Advances Written Off Amounting To Rs.3,20,34,757/- & Had Initiated

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “बी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1749/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2007-08) Del Monte Foods P. Ltd., Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase II, New Delhi 110070 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN: AAACF-8488-N बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 9(1), CR Building, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Anil Bhalla, Chartered Accounta…

Smita Virendra Lodha, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1980/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 270A

…limb under sub-section (9) thereof pertaining to “misreporting of income”. Learned counsel quoted the erstwhile earlier penalty mechanism provided u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the law stood duly settled in light of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. ACIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB); CIT vs. M/s. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 386 ITR (St.) 13 (SC) and CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) (HC) that an assessing authority has to specify the corresponding limb in the show cause notice to be issued u/sec.274 of the Act. Learned counsel’s case is that the legal position would hardly be any d…

Splendor Landbase Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6013/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.6013/िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2011-12) M/S. Splendor Landbase Ltd., Unit No. 501-511, 5Th Floor, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi 110025 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaeca-3986-E बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Central Circle-3, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhawa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Choudhary, CIT(DR)

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “जी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम"ा, लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.6013/िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2011-12) M/s. Splendor Landbase Ltd., Unit No. 501-511, 5th Floor, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi 110025 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN: AAECA-3986-E बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Central Circle-3, New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Ajay Wadhawa, Advocate Shri…

Deepak Bhika Suryawanshi, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

Appeals are allowed

ITA 685/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Annasaheb Namdeo Gunjal Vs. Ito, Nashik 1, Vraj Vihar, Vidhate Nagar, S.No.15-10-2011, Cts No.2421, Fame Theatre, Nsk Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 Pan: Aaxpg5950C Appellant Respondent "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Deepak Bhika Suryawanshi Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Plot No.36, Nashik Vrundavan Bunglow, Deffodil Soc, Wadala-Pathardi Road, Opp. Guru Govind Singh College, Indira Nagar, Nashik – 422009 Pan: Achps8498R Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 9

…learned Assessing Officer’s failure to pinpoint the corresponding default of assessee’s part indeed vitiates the entire proceedings as per (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Del) Schneider Electric South Asia Ltd. Vs. ACIT (in the new scheme) and Md. Farhan Vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) in section 271(1)(c) old penal provision. We order accordingly. The impugned penalty of Rs.98,324/- stands deleted in very terms.” 5. Learned departmental representative could hardly dispute the fact that the AO’s corresponding show cause notices as well as penalty orders in both these cases have not specified the relevant limb u/s.270A(a) t…

Annasaheb Namdeo Gunjal, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

Appeals are allowed

ITA 182/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 9

Assistant Commissiner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Tata Teleservices Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2759/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumaracit, Vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd, 124, 10Th Floor, Jeevan Bharati Delhi Tower-I, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaact2438A Co No. 82/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 2759/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Tata Teleservices Ltd, Vs. Acit, 124, 10Th Floor, Jeevan Delhi Bharati Tower-I, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaact2438A Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Shri Divyanshu Singla, Ca Shri Prateek Chauhan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2024 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: 1. The Appeal In Ita No.2759/Del/2024 For Ay 2007-08, Arises Out Of The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Nfac‟, In Short] In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1063789663(1) Dated 31.03.2024 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 30.03.2018 By The Assessing Officer, Acit, Circle-25(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟).

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)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…

Late Paramjeet Singh Chawala (Gurneet Chawla Legal Heir), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2092/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarlate Paramjeet Singh Chawala Vs. Dcit, (Gurneet Chawla Legal Heir), Central Circle-Ii, C/O. R. C. Rai & Associates, Faridabad 203, 2Nd Floor, Akashdeep 26A, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Acwpc3161C

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Danesta, Sr. DR

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

Sector 113 Gatevida Private Limited (Formerly Knwon As Lemon Tree Land and Developers Private Limited), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1622/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareeksector 113 Gatevida Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 4 (1), (Formerly Known As Lemon Tree Land & Gurgaon. Developers Private Limited), Plot No.6, J Block, Community Centre V, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. (Pan : Aaccl2552R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sukh Sagar Syal, Advocate Shri Nilay Jhaveri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 Date Of Order : 09.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sukh Sagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

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

…74 read with section 271(1)(c)of the Act is a defective one. He submitted that the charge has not been specified in the notice, hence referring to various decisions including that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) & Pr. CIT vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 534 (Delhi), ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the penalty order is liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the above submissions and relied u…

Smt. Smita Ashok Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4386/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Smt. Smita Ashok Thakkar Dcit, Central Circle 6(4) 1St Floor, Karimjee Building, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vs. Air India Building, Mumbai-400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth

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

…iated by the impugned notice dated 21.03.2014 where the ld. A.O. has failed to strike out the irrelevant limb. The ld. AR has relied on the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohammed Farhan A. Shaikh vs. CIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom) which has held that the striking off the irrelevant limb is a mandatory condition or requirement to be followed by the ld. A.O. while issuing the penalty notice and the failure to do so would vitiate the said proceedings. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Veena…

DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Michael Page International Recruitment Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3090/MUM/2023[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, CA andFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3090/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(1), Mumbai Michael Page International Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 5th Floor, 2 North Avenue Maker Maxity, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051 (PAN : AAGCM8425N) (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 40/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Michael Page International Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., 5th Floor, 2 North Avenue Maker Vs. Maxity, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 (PAN : AAGCM8425N) Deputy Commis…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3488/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 3488/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Asst. CIT-8(2)(1), Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Piramal Ananta, Agastya Corporate Park, Kamani JUNC, LBS Marg, Opp. Fire Bridge, Kurla S.O. Mumbai-400070. PAN NO. AAACN 4538 P Respondent CO No. 156/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 3488/MUM/2024) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Piramal Ananta, Agastya Corporate Park, Ka…

Sanjeev Kumar, Utter Pradesh vs. DCIT, Central Circle -14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2017/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmasanjeev Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Ram Kutir, D. M. Central Circle-14, Colony, Road, New Delhi Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abbpk0132H

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Kapur, AdvFor Respondent: Shri t. James Singson, CIT 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…

Chl Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8776/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Chl Ltd, Vs. Acit, Hotel The Surya, Circle-16(1), New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacc2587M

For Appellant: Shri Satish Khosla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripthi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)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…

Fabrikant Trading (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi/Ms. KetkiFor Respondent: Ms Usha Gaikwad, Sr. AR

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

…articulars of income. The learned AR in support of his submission relied on various decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal including the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v/s CIT, [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.). 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities and submitted that the issue of alleged defect in notice issued under section 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been recently considered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the Veena E…

Nirmal Narendrakumar Kotecha, Mumbai vs. Int. Tax, Ward-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in terms of paragraph 24 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4592/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Nirmal Narendrakumar Kotecha C/o. Ronak Kotecha, 601, Sukh Castle, Bhandarkar Road, Matunga (Central) Mumbai – 400 019 PAN:AEZPK2016H …………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer International Taxation- 3(1)(1), Mumbai …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Ms. Kinjal Bhuta For the Respondent/Department : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Date Conclusion of hearing : 22.05.2024 Pronouncement of order : 16.08.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the…

D R Coats Ink and Resins Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3188/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R

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

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3188/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 D R Coats Ink and Resins Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of Income 230, New Sonal Link Tax – 12(2)(1), Mumbai Vs Indl. Estate, Bldg No. 2 Link Road Malad (W) Mumbai - 400064 [PAN: AABCD8645A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Shri Vimal Punmiya, A/R Assessee by : Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/08/2024 घोष…

Arulsundaram Nithya, Erode vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1112/CHNY/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1112/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya, The Acit, 11, Poondurai Road, Circle-1, Ragupathinaickenpalayam, Erode. Erode-638 002. [Pan: Abspn 5094 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…f the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad) and also the decision of the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay). 4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, since assessee was handicapped from defending herself due to the defect in the notice which goes to the root of the penalty levied by the AO, we direct the deletion of the penalty. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 09th day of August, 2024, i…

Ashok Kailash Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 716/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ashok Kumar Jain, Income Tax Officer, Office A-5, Pink Apartments, Ward – 24(1)(1), Mumbai Off. J.P, Road, Vs. 7 Bungalows, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 061 (PAN : AACPJ8952G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : None Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 30.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(…