Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- Panvel -Circle Panvel, Panvel

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd The Dcit, Gti House, Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Panvel, Circle Panvel Vs. Seva Uran, Mumbai-400 707 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccg1899E Assessee By : Shri Manish Kanth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022

…Terminals India P. Ltd.; A.Y. 12-13 learned CIT (A) in the notice. In such a case despite finding in the assessment order and in the penalty order, the penalty cannot survive as per order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Mhd. Farhan sheikh VS DCIT 434 ITR 1, Bombay. 012. The quantum addition confirmed by the ITAT was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and same was admitted in ITA No. 1139 of 2021 which was posted for final hearing on 13th January, 2022 vide order dated 14th December, 2021. Thus, it was also stated when the issue is pending before the Hon'ble High Court it became debatable issue…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. The Thane District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2512/मुं/2019 ("न. व .2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -3, Thane, Room No.02, 6Th Floor, Aashar It Park, B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16Z, Thane (W)- 400 604. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Thane District Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. 01, Chhatrapati Shivaji Path, Post Box No.19, Thane (W)- 400 601. Pan: Aaaat-0739-N ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Sinha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Patil सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2022 आदेश/ Order

…levant limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in proforma notice. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee in support of his contentions placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT, 434 ITR 1(Bom). 3 3. Per contra, Shri Manoj Sinha representing the Department vehemently defended the penalty order. 4. Both sides heard, orders of authorities below and the notice dated 24/03/2014 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act examined. In appeal filed by the assessee against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) has dele…

Venkatesh Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 3(3) (4), Mumbai

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

…horized Representative of the Appellant submitted that the issue raised in Ground No. 2 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 30.03.2013, has been issued without deleting or striking off inapplicable part. While the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the penalty order to support his case, 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 he fairly acknowledged the fact that the penalty notice has been issued under Section 271 read with 274 of the…

Hiren Bechar Patel, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Ward-2(5), Kalyan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal: A.Y : 2012-13 Hiren Bechar Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 111, Akshardam, Ward-2(5), Kalyan Floor 5/6, Kansai Section, (Respondent) Ambernath East, Ambernath 421 501, Maharashtra. (Appellant) Pan : Aolpp7438Q

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : A.Y : 2012-13 Hiren Bechar Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 111, Akshardam, Ward-2(5), Kalyan Floor 5/6, Kansai Section, (Respondent) Ambernath East, Ambernath 421 501, Maharashtra. (Appellant) PAN : AOLPP7438Q Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mahita Nair Date of Hearing : 29/06/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29/06/2022 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM : The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 28.04.2022 passed by lear…

Shantilal Balubhai Parekh, Mumbai vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.580/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shantilal Balubhai Parekh बिधम/ Ito, Ward 3(4) 24, Gaurav Apartment, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. Nahur Village Road, Above Canara Bank, Sarvoday Nagar, Mulund Murbad Road, Kalyan, West, Mumbai-400080. Maharashtra -421301. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akcpp9255C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Radha Halbe Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Ojha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 09.07.2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A), Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.83,282/-. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Ms. Radha Halbe Brought To Our Notice That The Impugned Penalty Levied By Ao Is Bad In Law For Issuing Defective Notice Before Levying The Penalty. To Buttress This Contention, She Drew Our Attention To The Show Cause Notice (Scn) Issued By The Ao U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated

…aw and therefore, the penalty levied pursuant to it is also bad in law, and therefore the penalty should be deleted and relied 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 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 Dourado P…

Kedaara Capital Advisors LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…nalty levied on the basis of a defective show cause notice is also bad in law, and so the penalty should be deleted and relied 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…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

…CO Nos.: 114/Mum/2016 and 37/Mum/ 2020 ITA No. 6994/Mum/2012; Assessment year 2008-09 Page 1 of 20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI I BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Amit Shukla (Judicial Member)] Assessment year 2008-09 Shinhan Bank ……………….………Appellant Wockhardt Towers, 5th floor, West Wing Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 [PAN: AAACC2144A] Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Range 2(1), Mumbai ……………………Respondent CO Nos.: 114/Mum/2016 and 37/Mum/ 2020 Arising out of ITA No. 6994/Mum/2012 Assessment year 2008-09 Deputy Director…

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

…CO Nos.: 113/Mum/2016 and 36/Mum/ 2020 ITA No. 6993/Mum/2012; Assessment year 2007-08 Page 1 of 29 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI I BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Amit Shukla (Judicial Member)] Assessment year 2007-08 Shinhan Bank ……………….………Appellant Wockhardt Towers, 5th floor, West Wing Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 [PAN: AAACC2144A] Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Range 2(1), Mumbai ……………………Respondent CO Nos.: 113/Mum/2016 and 36/Mum/ 2020 Arising out of ITA No. 6993/Mum/2012 Assessment year 2007-08 Deputy Director of In…