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

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 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

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…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos. 2227 & 2229/Mum/2017and 7345 & 7347/Mum/2018 CO Nos.: 17 & 18/Mum/ 2021; Assessment years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Page 1 of 33 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI I BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] ITA Nos. 2227 & 2229/Mum/2017 ITA Nos. 7345 & 7347/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Shinhan Bank .…………………………Appellant Unit No 701, 7th floor, Peninsulla Tower-1, Peninsula Corporate Park, G.K Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 [PAN: AAACC2144A] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (IT) 4(2)(1) Mumbai ……………...…………Respondent CO Nos…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)

Jalaram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 15(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 602/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejalaram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 15(2)(2) Room No. 15B, Ground Floor Central Facility Building No.2 Plot No. 13, Sector 19 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400705 Pan: Aabcj6334N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ritika Aggarwal Department Represented By : Vranda U. Matkari

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e 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. 6. 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…

Raju Tirathdas Ramchandani, Mum vs. Income Tax Officer-22(3)(1), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhraju Tirathdas Vs. Income Tax Officer - Ramchandani, 603, 22(3)(1), Piramal Premodyan Co-Op Chamber, Lal Baugh Housing Society, 12Th Parel, Road, Ram Krishna Maharashtra - 400012 Mission, Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aebpr3611P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shashi Bekal Respondent By : Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Am: The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Nfac In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.4,49,922/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. Fact In Brief Is That Assessment U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act Was Finalized On 04.03.2013. During The Course Assessment A.O Noticed That Assessee Has Made Total Investment Of Rs.14,00,000/- During The Year In All Templaton India Treasury Management Account Regular Plan – Weekly Dividend Plan Scheme. The A.O Stated That During The Course Of

For Appellant: Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA No.2252/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2005-06 1 Raju Tirathdas Ramchandani Vs. Income Tax Officer -22(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Raju Tirathdas Vs. Income Tax Officer - Ramchandani, 603, 22(3)(1), Piramal Premodyan Co-op Chamber, Lal Baugh Housing Society, 12th Parel, Road, Ram Krishna Maharashtra - 400012 Mission, Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AEBPR3611P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shashi Bekal Respondent by : Mahita Nair Date of Hearing 31.10.2022 Date of Pr…

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6112/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA Nos. 6110 to 6113/Mum/2019 1 Gaurishankar Chaudhary Vs. ACIT, CC-4(4) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.6110 to 6113/Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2014-15) Gaurishankar Chaudhary Vs. ACIT, CC-4(4) Flat No. 103 & 104, Sea 1922, 19th Floor, Air Shell Apartment, Opp. India Building, Nana Nani Park, Seven Nariman Point, Bungalows, Andheri West Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 061 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: ACXPC8039Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Harmesh Lal Date…

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6110/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Magnaram Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7077/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7077/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Shri Magnaram Choudhary बिधम/ Ito-17(2)(3) Flat No. 304, Building No. Matru Mandir, Mumbai. Vs. B-2/D, Nav Maharashtra Nagar Co-Op Society, M. P. Mill Compound, Tardeo, Mumbai-400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ainpc0320L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee An Individual Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 Mumbai Dated 03.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

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

…Choudhary 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 Jurisdictional 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 Appea…

Kundanmal Keshrimalji Dhakad, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-18(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1691/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhkundanmal Keshrimalji Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Dhakad, Shop No.14, Ward 18(2)(2), Ladivala Chambers, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Sheikh Memon Street, Mumbai – 400 007 Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aeepd9718G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sridhar Govind Menon Date Of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Hereinafter Referred To As "Nfac" Has Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Appellant Ex-Parte On 30 April, 2022 Ignoring The Fact That The Adjournment Request Of The Appellant Dated 25Th April, 2022 Requesting For Adjournment Till 10Th May, 2022 Was Already On Records & The Same Was Pending As On The Date Of Deciding The Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sridhar Govind Menon

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

…ITA No.1691/Mum/2022 A.Y.2014-15 1 Kundanmal Keshrimalji Dhakad Vs. ITO, Ward-18(2)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kundanmal Keshrimalji Vs. Income-tax Officer, Dhakad, Shop No.14, Ward 18(2)(2), Ladivala Chambers, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Sheikh Memon Street, Mumbai – 400 007 Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai – 400 002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AEEPD9718G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sridhar Govind Menon Date of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 26.10.2022 आदेश / O…

Bits Information Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 3(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9803/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 9803/Del/2019 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(2)(c)Section 68

…direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 13. 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 10 BITS Information Technology Solutions 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. 14. Ratio of this…

Biotrobnik Medical Devices India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 9800/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 9568/Del/2019 (A.Y 2009-10)

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

…direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 8. 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. 9. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay…

Biotronik Medical Devices India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 9568/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 9568/Del/2019 (A.Y 2009-10)

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

Blk Ncc Consortium, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed

ITA 8802/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

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

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

…direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 13. 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. 14. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay…

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 1380/MUM/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the penalty issued in pursuance to the same is also bad in law. For that, we rely on the decisions of the Full bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional of High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 wherein their Lordships has held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against to which the assessee is being proceeded against would vitiate the penalty itself. And thus the Hon’ble Court upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourad…

De Dietrich Process Systems India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2021/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2021 & 2022/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit-19(3)(1), Mumbai De Dietrich Process Systems Aayakar Bhavan, India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 R. No. 548/549, Road No. 16, Vs. Ttc Indl. Area, Midc Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccd8576D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 13.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-16, Mumbai In Relation To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40aSection 43B

…iate the levy of penalty. Further, the notice sent by the AO could not be received by the assessee. Thus, such levy of penalty is bad in law. In support of it, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh 92021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom). 15. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that AO has specifically mentioned in the assessment order that he is intending the penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and has also levied the penalty on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Moreover all the additions and disallowances have bee…

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 7 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 191/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Pandit Gangadgar Kawale, Nanded vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Nanded

ITA 1409/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1409/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Pandit Gangadhar Kawale A/P Shelgaon, Umari, Nanded – 431807 Maharashtra . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Avlpk1461F बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ward 3, Nanded द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pratikh Sandhbhor Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing: 30/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/03/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Emanated Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt. 24/03/2017 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nanded [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Pratikh SandhbhorFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

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

…Court in “Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT” reported at 291 ITR 519 (SC), and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, in plethora of cases inter-alia “CIT Vs Samson Pericherry” reported in 392 ITR 4, and recently in “Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT” reported at 434 ITR 1, we are ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4 Pandit Gangadhar Kawale ITA No.1409/PUN/2019 AY: 2009-10 on the considered view that, since the provision of section 271(1)(c) is calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, and mandatory, hence brooks no trifling or dilution therewith, as a result in the instant case the SCN dt 22/03/2013 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1…

Kamlesh M. Kanungo, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1618/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalkamlesh M. Kanungo, C/O. D.C. Bothra& Co. Llp (Ca), (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Abbpk9675R ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit- Cc-1(4), 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Annexe Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rajkumar Singh Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Sinha Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10.02.2021 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Sinha

Section 133Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…vide Page no- 33 of the paper -book. We found the objection raised by the assessee factually correct. In the light of above facts and respectfully following the decision of hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Farhan. A. Shaikh V/s PCIT- 125 Taxmann.com 253, we found force in the ground raised by the assessee. Relevant extract of the High Court decision we are reproducing herein below: “As aptly pointed out by the referring Division Bench, before this Court there are two sets of cases. One set of cases is led by CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 75 Taxman 549/216 ITR 660 (Bombay) a decision earli…

Warana Industries Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1284/PUN/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1284/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Warana Industries Limited, The Acit, Circle-1, Gat No.795, Tatyasaheb Kore Vs Kolhapur. Nager, Chikurde Road, A/P: Warnanagar, Tal.Panhala, Kolhapur – 416113. Pan: Aaacw 1694 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranikh – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For The A.Y. 2006-07 Dated 16.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.05.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

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

…hat the AO has not struck-off the non-applicable words “have concealed the particulars of your income/furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. The ld.AR relied on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court full bench decision in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh 125 Taxmann.com 253 and ITAT orders. 6. The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A) and AO. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We have studied the penalty notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 06.04.2014 and observed that the AO has not struck-off ITA No.1284/PU…

M/S. Tamanna Hospitality Services Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

Appeal is allowed

ITA 174/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 271(1)(c)

…accurate particulars of such an income, as the case may be. 3. Faced with the situation, we quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent Full Bench decision in hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent 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. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th September, 2022. (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE)…