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

Sbi Capital Markets Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4248/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

…P a g e | 1 19 Appeals SBI Capital Market Ltd. Vs. ACIT,Range 4(3)(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97) SBI Capital Markets Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of 202, Maker Tower E, Income-tax Range-4(3)(3) Cuffe Parede, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 005 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACS7339D Appellant .. Respondent ITA Nos.3791 & 4246/Mum/2004 (A.Y.1997-98 & 1998-99) SBI Capital Markets Ltd. Vs. Jt. Commissioner of 202, Maker Tower E, Income-tax Special Cuffe Parede…

Sbi Capital Markets Ltd., Mumbai vs. JCIT Special Range, Mumbai

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

ITA 4246/MUM/2004[98-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

M/S. Sbi Capital Markets Ltd vs. The Jt CIT Sr-27

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

ITA 3791/MUM/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

M/S. Sbi Capital Markets Ltd vs. The ACIT RG-4(3)(3)

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

ITA 3790/MUM/2004[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

Raghavraj Ashok Bagri, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

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

…of the twin charges i.e., concealment of particulars of 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 DCIT, [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.), wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Court has held that the defect in the notice by not striking off the irrelevant matter would vitiate the penalty proceedings. Accordingly, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we reverse the findings of the lower authorities and quash the penalty orde…

Piramal Enterprises Ltd ( Earlier Known As Piramal Healthcare Ltd (Previouysly Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1026/मुं/ 2013 (िन.व. 2004-05) Piramal Enterprises Ltd., (Earlier Known As Piramal Healthcare Limited) (Previously Known As Nicholas Piramal India Limited) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan:Aaacn-4538-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax7(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ronak Doshi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Jhaveri

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri

Section 242Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ct (at page 1 & 2 of the paper book) would show that the irrelevant limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been struck off, thus, making the notice 3 ambiguous. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT, 434 ITR 1/125 taxmann.com 253 has held that where assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in 271(1)(c) of the Act a mere defect in the notice i.e. not striking off of the irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 4. Per contra, Shri Jayant Jhaveri representing the Department ve…

Shri Rajesh Ramchandra Dake, Panvel vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Mumbai

ITA 2/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 02 & 04/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13) Dcit, Cen. Cir-1, Shri Rajesh 6Th Floor, R. No. 10, A- Ramchandra Dake, बनाम/ B/2, Usha Prabha Chs, Wing, Ashar It Park, Ram Ganesh Gadkari Raoda No. 16-Z, Wagle Vs. Indl. Estate Marg, Prabhu Ali, Thane-400 604 Panvel – 410206, स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Afqpd1100D (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 28.12.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Consolidated Order Of Even Date 19.09.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay V

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 02 & 04/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13) DCIT, Cen. Cir-1, Shri Rajesh 6th floor, R. No. 10, A- Ramchandra Dake, बनाम/ B/2, Usha Prabha CHS, wing, Ashar IT Park, Ram Ganesh Gadkari Raoda no. 16-Z, Wagle Vs. Indl. Estate Marg, Prabhu Ali, Thane-400 604 Panvel – 410206, स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AFQPD1100D (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Ld. DR स…

Shri Rajkumar Nair, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle26(2) (5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 5963/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Devdutta MainkarFor Respondent: Ms. Megha Bhargav

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ellant submitted that the issue raised in Ground No. 2 in the present appeal is covered in favour of the Appellant 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), as the penalty notice, dated 16.03.2015, has 2 Assessment Year: 2009-10 been issued without deleting or striking off inapplicable part. Thus, the Appellant has not been informed whether penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. In response the Ld. Departmental Represen…

Viveck Mathreja, Mumbai vs. ACIT National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalviveck Mathreja Vs. Acit, National Face Less Plot No. 5, Trishul Assessment Centre Hatkesh Co-Op, Hsg.Sty, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Road No. 6, Jvpd, Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Ville Parle (W), Complex, Bandra Mumbai – 400 056 Mumbai - 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Acxpm8278M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N.R. AggarwalFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni

Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…has referred copy of notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act dated 18.03.2014 as per page no.35 of the appeal paper filed. The ld. Counsel has further contended that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) has held that if there is defect in notice of not striking off irrelevant matter, the penalty cannot be levied. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative has supported the order of lower authorities. ITA No.2594/Mum/2022 A.Y.2011-12 3 Viveck Mathreja Vs. ACIT, NFAC 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The…

Ekshad Ahamad Patodi, U S Nagar vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-2(3)(5), Khatima

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

ITA 76/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)

…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. 8 10. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bomb…

Shri Bhanwarlal M. Harsh, Thane vs. Dy CIT CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Bhanwarlal M Shah Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) A/2, 406, Runwal Plaza, Air India Building Nr. Koresh India Vartak Nariman Point, Nagar, Thane (West) Mumbai - 400021 400606 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacph5666F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Manoj MundraFor Respondent: J. Saravanan

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

…articulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3.1. We find that this issue is no longer res-integra in view of the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom). The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 181. It does. The primary burden lies on the Revenue. In the assessment proceedings, it forms an opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the assessee. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), rea…

Omsairam Steel and Allpys Pvt.Ltd, Jalna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Aurangabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 25/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year 2007-08 Omsairam Steel & Alloys The Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1,2,3,8 & 9 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Addl Midc Phase-Ii, Vs Chavani Aurangabad. Jalna - 431 203 State Of Maharashtra Pan Aaaco6232H Pin 431 002. State Of Maharashtra. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

For Appellant: Shri Dayachand D SawajiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 271(1)(c)

…ad concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such an income, as the case may be. 4. Faced with the situation, we quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent Full Bench landmark decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom) has settled the law that the above stated failure on the Assessing Officer’s part indeed vitiates the entire penal proceedings itself. We thus delete the impugned penalty for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09th December, 2022. (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE)…

Jamnagiri Harigiri Giri, Nanded vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Nanded

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

ITA 1796/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 68

…ad not reached the satisfaction by striking out the relevant column/limb of the show- 3 cause notice. Therefore, penalty proceedings are vitiated placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT 434 ITR 1 (Bombay). Without prejudice to the above, ld. AR submitted that mere addition does not entail levy of penalty. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities submits that no interference is called for. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal relates t…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Noesis Industries Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7327/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 12. 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. 13. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay…

Sheetal Wireless Technologies P Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Cir- 06, Pune

ITA 591/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.591/Pun/2021 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sheetal Wireless Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Flat No.17, 2Nd Floor, Sheshadri Society, Rambaug Colony, Paud Road, Pune – 411 038 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aahcs4069D बनधम / V/S. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-6, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 01/12/2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16 Is Assailed Against The First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short “Cit(A) /Nfac”] Dt. 08/09/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of Penalty Order [For Short “Po”] Of Dy. Commissioner Of Income, Circle-6, Pune U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dt.28/06/2018 [For Short “Ao”] U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dt. 08.12.2017. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

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

…॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे “ए” न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE“A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.591/PUN/2021 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sheetal Wireless Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Flat No.17, 2nd floor, Sheshadri Society, Rambaug Colony, Paud Road, Pune – 411 038 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant PAN : AAHCS4069D बनधम / V/s. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent DCIT, Circle-6, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde सप…

Rameshkumar Jawanmalji Sakaria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2492/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Megha Bhargav

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…of the Appellant submitted that the issue raised in Ground No. 1 in the present appeal is covered in favour of the Appellant by the 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), as the penalty notice, dated 10.02.2016, has been issued without deleting or striking off inapplicable part. While the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the penalty order to support his case, she fairly acknowledged the fact that the penalty notice has been issued under Section 271 read with 274 of the Act without deleting or st…

M/S. D.R. Plastics, Mumbai vs. ITO WD, 21(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1542/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S D.R. Plastics Vs. Ito, Ward 21(1)(4) 26, Ideal Industrial Piramal Chambers Estate, Madhuradas Mumbai - 400012 Compound Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfd7223N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: MrugakshiFor Respondent: Megha Bhargav

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

…ecision of coordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT, Circle-9(3)(1) Vs. M/s Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Ltd. wherein after following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) held that if there is a defect in notice of not striking off irrelevant matters the penalty cannot be levied. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative is supported the order of lower authorities. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. With the assistance of the ld. representative we have gone through the not…

B U Bhandari Navlakha Associates, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Cen Cir- 2(4), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 489/PUN/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2011-12 B.U. Bhandari Navlakha Vs. Dcit, Associates, Central Circle-2(4), 1182/1/3, First Floor, Pune F.C. Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 005 Maharashtra Pan : Aagfb8150Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P.Murkunde

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 B.U. Bhandari Navlakha Vs. DCIT, Associates, Central Circle-2(4), 1182/1/3, First Floor, Pune F.C. Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 005 Maharashtra PAN : AAGFB8150Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P.Murkunde Date of hearing : 20-10-2022 Date of pronouncement : 23-11-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee’s appeal for AY 2011-12 arises against the CIT(A), Pune-12’s order dated 13.08.2021, passed in c…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

…ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Deputy Commissioner Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. of Income-tax No.2/55/1, Outer Ring Road Central Circle-2(2) Opp. Lumbini Garen, Veeranna Bengaluru Vs. Palya Nagavara, Bengaluru 560 045 PAN NO : AADCT3672P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri A. Shankar, Senior Advocate Responde…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250