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 367,181 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

Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers Private Limited, Madurai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 794/CHNY/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.794/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers – The Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-2, 285/91 B, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai. Madurai-625 001. [Pan: Aarcs 2844 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And this action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts. We note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being M/s.Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. :: 5 :: proceeded, would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble High Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of P…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1130/CHNY/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1130/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri Poosappan Arulsundaram, Acit, 11, Poondurai Road, Circle-1, Ragupathinaickenpalayam, Erode. Erode-638 002. [Pan: Acgpa 7995 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

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

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad). We find force in the submissions of the Ld.AR and also note that 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) dated 11.03.2021 held that invalid notices vitiates the penalty levied by the AO. In the present case also we note that notice issued by AO was defective, and therefore, the assessee was handicapped from defending Shri Poosappan Arulsundaram :: 3 :: properly the charge/fault and resultantly, the defect in the notice, goes to the root of t…

Mahavir Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 134/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 133 & 134/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mahavir Enterprises 11/12, Anuraj Building, Daftary Road, Next to Agarwal Hospital, Malad East, Mumbai - 400 097 (PAN : AAKFM6017F) Vs. Income Tax Officer – 41(3)(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee Revenue Shri Shailesh Parmar Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 24.07.2024 ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals filed by the as…

Mahavir Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh ParmarFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.133 & 134/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mahavir Enterprises Income Tax Officer – 41(3)(1), 11/12. Anuraj Building, Mumbai Daftary Road, Next to Agarwal Vs. Hospital, Malad East, Mumbai – 400 097 (PAN : AAKFM6017F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Shailesh Parmar Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals filed…

Ebrahim Essa Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-9(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1187/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) & Smt Renu Jauhri (Am) I.T.A. No. 1187/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) Ebrahim Essa Vs. Ito-9(2)(4) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, 115 Dathawala Wstate, Mumbai-400020. Sv Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400102. Pan : Aacce4720E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mani Jain Department By Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2024 O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri (Am) :-

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) & Smt Renu Jauhri (AM) I.T.A. No. 1187/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) Ebrahim Essa Vs. ITO-9(2)(4) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, 115 Dathawala Wstate, Mumbai-400020. SV Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400102. PAN : AACCE4720E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mani Jain Department by Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 24.07.2024 O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 23-01-2024 passed by Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi…

Prashant Jitendra Sarvaya, Mumbai vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax 30 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2376/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2376/MUM/2024 (Α.Υ.2015-16) PrashantJitemdraSarvaya, Vs. ACIT Circle- 30(2), 404, Jatan Apt, Datta Mandir, Road, Malad (East), Mumbai -400097. Mumbai-400012. PAN/GIR No. AZSPS0629Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant by Shri D.C.Saboo.AR Respondent by Shri H.M Bhatt. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 10.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 15.07.2024 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against t…

Kent Engineering India Private Limted, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 4750/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Kent Engineering India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Commissioner Of Income Shastri Marg, Vikharoli, Tax (Appeal), 1(2)(1), Gagorre Nagar, S.O. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Embassy 247, Tower C Mumbai-400 020 Vikhroli, Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr1966M Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dhiraj Kumar, DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM Kent Engineering India Private Limited 10th Floor, Lal Bahadur Commissioner of Income Shastri Marg, Vikharoli, Tax (Appeal), 1(2)(1), Gagorre Nagar, S.O. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Embassy 247, Tower C Mumbai-400 020 Vikhroli, Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACR1966M Assessee by : Shri Niraj Sheth, AR Revenue by : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, DR Date of hearing: 15.07.2024 Date of pronouncement: 16.07.2024 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM: Instant appeal of the assessee is filed again…

Aplnagappa Chettiar, Madurai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.748/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri A.Pl.Nagappa Chettiar, The Acit, Plot No.353, Anna Nagar, Circle-3, Madurai-625 020. Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)

…ding the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad). We also note that 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) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus, the Hon’ble High Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax…

Dharmdas Sons Fruits Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4265/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 271(1)(c)

…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." We wish to make it clear that the learned Assessing Officer's above referred penalty show-cause notice had not complied with the legal requirement of pinpointing the specific limb under section “270A(8) & (9)(a t…

Asstt. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle Pune, P.M.T Building Swargate Pune vs. Kedari Redekar Shikshan Sanstha Gadhinglaj, Gadhinglaj

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 559/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 12ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 80G

…orting” as a consequence of “mis-reporting”. In such a scenario the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Realties (supra) held that not only Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s Full Bench landmark decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) applies wherein it is held that such a failure on the Assessing Officer’s part indeed vitiates the entire penal proceedings (in old scheme), but also the very principle applies qua this new scheme of section 270A applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2017 for AY 2017-18 onwards as per Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2022) 443 ITR 18…

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 959/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT

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

…being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And this action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts. We note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble High Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax…

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 958/CHNY/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT

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

…being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And this action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts. We note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble High Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax…

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 957/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT

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

…being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And this action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts. We note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble High Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax…

Ampa Palaniappan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

ITA 1371/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1370/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1371/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ampa Palaniappan Acit बनाम/ Non-Corporate Circle-2(1) 48/19, Raman Street, T. Nagar Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aippp-3546-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Mukundan (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Mukundan (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…his decision, co-ordinate bench relied on another decision of Tribunal in M/s PVP Ventures Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.778/Chny/2019) which in turn, drew strength from the decision of larger bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shhaikh (125 Taxmann.com 253) as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Babuji Jacob Vs. lTO (430 lTR 259; 08.12.2020) to take the same view. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob Vs. lTO (supra), considering various decisions holding the field, held that since the notice under Section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to…

Ampa Palaniappan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corp Circle 2(1), Chennai

ITA 1370/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Mukundan (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Ritu Multitrade Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 938/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ritu Multitrade Services Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward 396, Kamat Industrial Estate, 8(1)(2), Veer Savarkar Marg, Vs. Mumbai Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400025 (PAN : AAACR1995C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Devendra Jain, Advocate Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against…

Deepak Bhika Suryawanshi, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

Appeal is allowed

ITA 98/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Abhilasha Sanjay PawarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 271(1)(c)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. Delay of 533 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeal stands condoned in light of his condonation averments going un-rebutted from Revenue side. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in…

Kasat Prakash M HUF, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nanded

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1328/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Girish LaddaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9

…ned 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 S.A. Vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) in section 271(1)(c) old penal provision. We order accordingly. The impugned penalty of Rs.15,54,736/- stands deleted in very terms. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th June, 2024. (R.K. Panda) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 19th June, 2024. रदि आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy…

ITO-23(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Chetak Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4098/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, (SR.DR)

Section 250Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 30Section 50

…ed on the above total addition of Rs. 7,91,56,026/- (77,51,56,025+40,00,000). Apart from this the Appellant also relied on the decision of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikhvs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, reported as 434 ITR 1, [2021] 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bombay), in the video / conference held.” 8. In the finding, the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd vs DCIT Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore (2010)121 taxmann.com 171 (Mad). The order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court was challenged by the assessee before the Ho…

Chetak Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-23(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3776/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, (SR.DR)

Section 250Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 30Section 50