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.

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 1)

Mr Hajaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (CC)-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 1945/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 1944 & 1945, 1934 & 1935/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13) Mr. Hajaram Purohit Vs. Dcit (Cc)-5(3) 33, Ganesh Bhuvan, Room No. 11, Ground 3Rd Khetwadi Lane, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400004 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Agupp6813E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dipen Tanna Respondent By : Nihar Ranjan Samal Date Of Hearing 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These 4 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Are Directed Against The Different Orders Of Cit(A)-53, Mumbai. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Appeals Except Variation In The Amount, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 1944/Mum/2022 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeal Vide Ita No. 1945/Mum/2022. Similarly, The Finding In Respect Of Ita No. 1934/Mum/2022 Will Be Applied Vide

For Appellant: Dipen TannaFor Respondent: Nihar Ranjan Samal

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151

…944 & 1945, 1934 & 1935/Mum/2022 Mr. Hajaram Purohit Vs. DCIT (CC) -5(3) furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. The ld. Counsel has further contended that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) has held that if there is a defect in notice of not striking off irrelevant matter, the penalty cannot be levied. On the other hand, the ld. DR has supported the order of lower authorities. 16. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The case of the assesse was reopened and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was compl…

Mr. Hajaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC) -5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 1944/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 1944 & 1945, 1934 & 1935/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13) Mr. Hajaram Purohit Vs. Dcit (Cc)-5(3) 33, Ganesh Bhuvan, Room No. 11, Ground 3Rd Khetwadi Lane, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400004 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Agupp6813E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dipen Tanna Respondent By : Nihar Ranjan Samal Date Of Hearing 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These 4 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Are Directed Against The Different Orders Of Cit(A)-53, Mumbai. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Appeals Except Variation In The Amount, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 1944/Mum/2022 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeal Vide Ita No. 1945/Mum/2022. Similarly, The Finding In Respect Of Ita No. 1934/Mum/2022 Will Be Applied Vide

For Appellant: Dipen TannaFor Respondent: Nihar Ranjan Samal

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151

…944 & 1945, 1934 & 1935/Mum/2022 Mr. Hajaram Purohit Vs. DCIT (CC) -5(3) furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. The ld. Counsel has further contended that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) has held that if there is a defect in notice of not striking off irrelevant matter, the penalty cannot be levied. On the other hand, the ld. DR has supported the order of lower authorities. 16. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The case of the assesse was reopened and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was compl…

Mr. Hajaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC) -5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 1935/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 1944 & 1945, 1934 & 1935/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13) Mr. Hajaram Purohit Vs. Dcit (Cc)-5(3) 33, Ganesh Bhuvan, Room No. 11, Ground 3Rd Khetwadi Lane, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400004 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Agupp6813E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dipen Tanna Respondent By : Nihar Ranjan Samal Date Of Hearing 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These 4 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Are Directed Against The Different Orders Of Cit(A)-53, Mumbai. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Appeals Except Variation In The Amount, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 1944/Mum/2022 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeal Vide Ita No. 1945/Mum/2022. Similarly, The Finding In Respect Of Ita No. 1934/Mum/2022 Will Be Applied Vide

For Appellant: Dipen TannaFor Respondent: Nihar Ranjan Samal

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151

…944 & 1945, 1934 & 1935/Mum/2022 Mr. Hajaram Purohit Vs. DCIT (CC) -5(3) furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. The ld. Counsel has further contended that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) has held that if there is a defect in notice of not striking off irrelevant matter, the penalty cannot be levied. On the other hand, the ld. DR has supported the order of lower authorities. 16. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The case of the assesse was reopened and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was compl…

Shri. Hajaram P Purohit, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax (CC) -5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 1934/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 1944 & 1945, 1934 & 1935/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13) Mr. Hajaram Purohit Vs. Dcit (Cc)-5(3) 33, Ganesh Bhuvan, Room No. 11, Ground 3Rd Khetwadi Lane, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400004 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Agupp6813E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dipen Tanna Respondent By : Nihar Ranjan Samal Date Of Hearing 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These 4 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Are Directed Against The Different Orders Of Cit(A)-53, Mumbai. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Appeals Except Variation In The Amount, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 1944/Mum/2022 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeal Vide Ita No. 1945/Mum/2022. Similarly, The Finding In Respect Of Ita No. 1934/Mum/2022 Will Be Applied Vide

For Appellant: Dipen TannaFor Respondent: Nihar Ranjan Samal

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151

…944 & 1945, 1934 & 1935/Mum/2022 Mr. Hajaram Purohit Vs. DCIT (CC) -5(3) furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. The ld. Counsel has further contended that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) has held that if there is a defect in notice of not striking off irrelevant matter, the penalty cannot be levied. On the other hand, the ld. DR has supported the order of lower authorities. 16. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The case of the assesse was reopened and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was compl…

Dharam Pal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -42(5), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5811/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Department by: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. D. RFor Respondent: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. D. R

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54B

…1 Shri Dharampal, New Delhi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5811/DEL/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) Shri Dharampal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-29, New Multan Nagar, New Delhi. Ward : 42 (5) PAN No. AFXPP9705M New Delhi. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) Shri Shailender Bajaj, C. A.; Assessee by : Department by: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. D. R.; Date of Hearing 14.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.02.2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR US, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 3, Thane vs. M/S. Shree Rubber Works, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3118/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

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

…a copy of the said notice. He submitted that non-striking of inapplicable portion in the notice will vitiate the penalty proceedings as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1. Accordingly, the 2 M/s. Shree Rubber Works learned AR submitted that the order passed by Ld CIT(A) does not call for any interference on the basis of above said legal contention. 3. We have heard learned DR and perused the record. On a perusal of the notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w. Section 271(1) (c) of the Act dated 13.03.2015 calling upon…

Chintan H. Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5650/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2023AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Special Counsel

Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

…d. She submitted that on merits the issue raised in the additional ground stands decided in favour of the Assessee by the full bench judgment of the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Belgaum reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bombay). She also relied upon the judgment of Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory : [2013] 359 ITR 565. 9. Countering the submissions advanced by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee on merits, the Ld. Counsel for the Revenue referred to his Note/Synopsis, dated 28.08.2021, and sub…

Hasmukh I. Gandhi Legal Heir of Late Nirav Gandhi), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5648/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2023AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Special Counsel

Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

…d. She submitted that on merits the issue raised in the additional ground stands decided in favour of the Assessee by the full bench judgment of the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Belgaum reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bombay). She also relied upon the judgment of Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory : [2013] 359 ITR 565. 9. Countering the submissions advanced by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee on merits, the Ld. Counsel for the Revenue referred to his Note/Synopsis, dated 28.08.2021, and sub…

Sonpal Singh Pal Singhsaini, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3287/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms.VasantiPatel&Mr.NileshJoshi.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Paresh Deshpande.DR

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

…otice dated 23-12-2011 and the submissions are realistic. We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court of Bombay in Mohd Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT in Tax Appeal No. 51 Shri Sonpal Singh Pal Singhsaini, Mumbai. to57of2012dated11.03.202(2021)125.taxmann.com25 3 /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, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2545/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.P. BairgraFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra

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

…CIT(A) accepted the aforesaid contention of the Assessee and deleted the penalty vide order, dated 27.07.2022, by relying upon the Full Bench judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Belgaum : 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) holding as under: “9.14. Turning to the facts of extant case, the penalty was levied in this case on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 10B and ALP adjustments. In respect of both these issues, Id. AO has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act concluding that "the assessee company has furnished inaccurate particulars of in…

Sbi Capital Markets Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1511/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2005-06