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

Right Tight Fastners Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…1 ITA 684/Mum/2023 M/s Right Tight Fastners Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.684/Mum/2023 (Assessment year 2013-14) Right Tight Fastners Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Office No.112, Bhaveshwar Arcade Tax-11(1)(1), Mumbai 204, Aayakar Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Annexe, Near Shreyas Cinema Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 086 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Shashank Mehta Department represented by Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.AR Date of hearing 16…

Gautam Puranmal Poddar, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Circle 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 584/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 583 & 584/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gautam Puranmal Poddar Acit, Circle-3(2), (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Plot No. Rl 1 Milap Nagar Midc Vs. Above Canara Bank, Resioential Area Dombivli East Murbad Rd. Kalyan, Kalyan-421 301. Thane-421 301. Pan No. Aaehg 6868 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ca Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…f the decision of the Hon’ble n view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. Dy. CIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom) Dy. CIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom), which has been further relied by which has been further relied by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ganga Iron & on’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ganga Iron & on’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 244 (Bombay). Steel Trading Co. CIT […

Gautam Puranmal Poddar, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Circle 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 583/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Goldstar Finvest P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

ITA 7426/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir Yadav, D.R

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

…nst the assessee for concealing particulars of his income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. 11. This issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Full Bench Judgment rendered in case of Md. Farhan A Sheikh vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1(FB-Bombay) and held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable when invalid notice as in the instant case has been issued to the assessee. The operative part of the order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is as under: “180. One course of before us is curing a defect in the notice by referring to the assessment order, whic…

Shri Sanjaykumar Babulal Jain, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-6(3), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjaykumar Babulal Jain, Dcit, Cc-6(3), 28, Kewal Industries Estate, Sb 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Marg, Lower Parel (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aefpj 7802 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Karan Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Karan Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.S. Sant, DR

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

…t in the case of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT Central Circle 1 in [2021] Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT Central Circle 1 in [2021] Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT Central Circle 1 in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay), the penalty levied is bad in law and therefore, , the penalty levied is bad in law and therefore, liable to be quashed. liable to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative…

Vansh Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6051/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 7. As could be seen from the above the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [(2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)] while dealing with the issue of non- strike off of the irrelevant part in the notice issued u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act, held that assessee must be informed of the grounds of the 7 I.T.A. No. 6051/Del/2019 penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 8. In the case of PCIT Vs. Sah…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the cross objection is allowed and the Revenue’s

ITA 5771/DEL/2010[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2023AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 271(1)(c)

…I.T.A.No.5771/Del/2010 & CO No. 23/Del/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.5771/Del/2010 Assessment Year: 1992-93 बनाम DCIT Sahara India Ltd. Central Circle 6, Vs. 1, Kapoorthala Complex, New Delhi. Aliganj, Lucknow. PAN No. PAN No. AADCS4482J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No. 23/Del/2011 (I.T.A No.5771/Del/2010) Assessment Year: 1992-93 बनाम Sahara India Ltd. DCIT 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Vs. Central Circle 6, Aliganj, Lucknow. New Delhi. PAN No. AADCS4482J अपीलाथ" A…

Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7719/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2007-08]

Section 22Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Ansal Properties & Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Infrastructure Ltd. Circle-2(2), 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Vs New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 PAN-AAACA0006D Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. RS Singhvi, Adv. & Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Adv. Revenue by Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 23.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 05.04.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ord…

Mukesh Desai, Mumbai vs. Circle 25(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3030/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akash KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos.3030/Mum/2022 (Assessment Years: 2010-11) Mukesh Desai ITO, Ward-25(3)(1) 9, Madhu Kunj, Tejpal Road, Mumbai Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 057 PAN/GIR No. AABPD 7788 D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Akash Kumar Revenue by : Ms. Mahita Nair Date of Hearing : 21.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for…

Jitendra Babulal Shah-HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 42/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaljitendra Babulal Shah Vs. Ito – 19(2)(1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, 257-263 Shanti Sadan, Tardevo Road, D B Marg, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabhj9591E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Mayank Kothari.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Vranda U Matkari.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi /Cit(A) Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal As Under:

For Appellant: Mr.Mayank Kothari.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Vranda U Matkari.DR

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

…otice dated 2-03-2015 and the submissions are realistic.We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court of Bombay in Jitendra babulal Shah-HUF, Mumbai. Mohd Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT in Tax Appeal No. 51 to 57 of 2012 dated 11.03.202 (2021) 125 .taxmann. com 253 /434 ITR 1 (Bombay) has dealt on this disputed issue of not striking off charge in the penalty notice would vitiate the penalty proceedings. The Hon’ble High Court has made observations at page 56 as under; 180. One course of before us is curing a defect in the notice by referring to the assessment order, which may or not contain reason for the penalty proce…

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Patan Solar Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3133/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. M/Spatansolarpvtltd., Central Circle – 2(4) 602, 6Th Floor, Western Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Edge-I,Western Prathishtha Bhavan, Express Highway, Mk Road, Churchgate, Borivali (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400066. Pan/Gir No. : Aafcp6744A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. V.K. Chaturvedi.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr. V.K. Chaturvedi.DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rushabh Mehta.AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

…71,08,390/- deserved to be deleted. Hence, Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of appellant are Allowed. 8.We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court of Bombay in Mohd Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT in Tax Appeal No. 51 to 57 of 2012 dated 11.03.202 (2021) 125.taxmann.com 253 /434 ITR 1 (Bombay) has dealt on this disputed issue of not striking off charge in the penalty notice would vitiate the penalty proceedings. The Hon’ble High Court has made observations at page 56 as under; M/s Patan Solar Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 180. One course of before us is curing a defect in the notice by referring to the assessment order, which may or not cont…

DCIT Central-Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1946/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…cer has not specified whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 28. The Ld.Counsel has also referred the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd Farhan A Shaikh vs DCIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom) wherein it was held that if there is a defect in notice by not striking off the irrelevant matter, the penalty cannot be levied. 29. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the order of Assessing Officer. 17 Kapstone Construction Pvt Ltd ITA 5631/Mum/2014 ITA 2822/Mum/2019 ITA 3003/Mum/2019 ITA 1946/Mum/2022 CO 175/Mum/2018 CO 17/Mum/2023 30…

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3003/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2822/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

DCIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5631/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Ancha Shankar Rao, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 67(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1799/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Bindal, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271Section 271FSection 274Section 275

…e direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 9. As could be seen from the above the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [(2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)] while dealing with the issue of non- strike off of the irrelevant part in the notice issued u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act, held that assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 10. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bomba…

Shri Rachhpal Singh Son of Shri Tarlok Singh, Ferozepur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3 (1), Ferozepur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/ASR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Jawsinder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 166/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sh. Rachhpal Singh V. Income Tax Officer, S/o Sh. Tarlok Singh Ward-3, Ferozepur Vill. Shehzadi, Distt. Ferozepur [PAN: AENPS 6299E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Jawsinder Singh, CA Respondent by : Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the…

Shri Onkar Singh, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Hoshiarpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 232/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sh. Onkar Singh V. Income Tax Officer, S/o Sh. Atma Singh Ward-3, Hoshiarpur VPO Sham Chaurasi, Hoshiarpur [PAN: DXSPS 2061F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Y. K. Sud, CA Respondent by : Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissi…

Vaishali Kamlesh Bavishi, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

ITA 3186/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Hari Raheja, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Vrunda U. Matkari, D.R

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

…ssee has accepted the addition of Rs.2,98,741/- made by the AO under section 69C of the Act by not filing any appeal. Now the assessee by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court Full Bench in case of Md. Farhan A Sheikh vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1(FB-Bombay) contended that on the basis of invalid notice issued by the AO penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied and sought to delete the same. 7. Before proceeding further we would extract the notice issued by the AO under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act for ready perusal as under: 4 Mrs. Vaishali Kamlesh Bavishi 5 Mrs. Vai…

Dhanlaxmi Fabrics Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - Circle -1, Kalyan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2130/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledhanalaxmi Fabrics Limited V. Acit – Circle – 1 401, Kailas Corporate Lounge Kalyan - 421204 Veer Savarkar Marg, Park Site Vikhroli (W), Mumbai - 400079 Pan: Aabcd1592N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Bharat Gadhi & Assessee Represented By : Ms. Poonam Kotkar Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…issued. It can be seen from the notices issued u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act it appears that the charge was for both the limbs. 7. An identical issue came up before Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [434 ITR 1] and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under: - “Question No.1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice—not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181. It does. The primary…