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 366,470 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 274Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 153ASection 250Section 147Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(8)section 271(l)record datesection 271(l)(c)section 274section 270a(9)furnishing inaccurate particularsfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomeconcealment of incomenon-application of mindpenalty proceedings initiatedpenalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

Shri. Kirit J Kadecha, Mumbai vs. ITO 32 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6504/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2004-05 ) Shri Kirit Kadecha, Room No.1, Sai Sadan, Roshan Nagar, Chandavarkar Road, Borivali West, Mumbai 400 092 Pan: Aghpk-4337-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Ito-32(2)(2), Room No.108, 1St Floor, C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smitha Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smitha Nair
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…essing Officer did not strike off irrelevant charge of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the pre-printed performa notice, thus, making the notice vague and defective. 8. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd.Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT, 434 ITR 1 has held that the notice issued without striking off irrelevant clause would make the notice ambiguous and hence, defective. Consequently, the entire penalty proceeds would be vitiated. For the sake of completeness the question before the Hon’ble Full Bench and the relevant extract of the decision is reproduced herein under: “Question No. 1: If t…

DCIT-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4490/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pinisetty Satya Prasanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27iSection 40

…section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing the particulars of income no penalty can be imposed on the basis of the same. 16. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) has decided the identical issue as to initiating the penalty proceedings on the basis of invalid notice and held that penalty levied on the basis invalid notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 17. It is further contended by Ld. A.R. for the assessee that w…

Choice Diamond, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 27/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2012-13) Choice Diamond, Cc-4101, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaafc-0677-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 19(1), 203, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 007 अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Dharshti Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Dharshti ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…otice without application of mind, without specifying the limb under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd.Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT reported as 434 ITR 1 has held that where the notice has been issued in a format without striking off irrelevant matter, the penalty proceedings are vitiated. 3. Shri R.A. Dhyani representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the…

M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Movers, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1586/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune11 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1586 & 1587/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Movers Pune Office No.8, Wonder City, Katraj By-Pass Road, Pune – 411046 Pan: Aatfs8504N Appellant Respondent

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.1586 & 1587/PUN/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Movers Pune Office No.8, Wonder City, Katraj By-Pass Road, Pune – 411046 PAN: AATFS8504N Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of hearing 11-01-2022 Date of pronouncement 11-01-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : Both the appeals by the assessee are directed against…

M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Movers, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1587/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune11 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1586 & 1587/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Movers Pune Office No.8, Wonder City, Katraj By-Pass Road, Pune – 411046 Pan: Aatfs8504N Appellant Respondent

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.1586 & 1587/PUN/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Movers Pune Office No.8, Wonder City, Katraj By-Pass Road, Pune – 411046 PAN: AATFS8504N Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of hearing 11-01-2022 Date of pronouncement 11-01-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : Both the appeals by the assessee are directed against…

M/S. Shubham Developers Promoters and Builders, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1556/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1556/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Shubham Developers Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Promoters & Builders Pune R.G. Bhilare & Co. Chartered Accountants Plot No.9, Jatan Niwas, Ruturaj Soc., Off Pune Satara Road, Pune-411037 Pan: Abtfs0303E Appellant Respondent

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1556/PUN/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Shubham Developers Vs. DCIT, Circle-8, Promoters & Builders Pune R.G. Bhilare & Co. Chartered Accountants Plot No.9, Jatan Niwas, Ruturaj Soc., Off Pune Satara Road, Pune-411037 PAN: ABTFS0303E Appellant Respondent Assessee by Ms. Diksha Agarwal Revenue by Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of hearing 10-01-2022 Date of pronouncement 10-01-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : Th…

Aesthetica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5133/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in case of (i) PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in 432 ITR 84 (Del.); (ii) CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karn); (iii) Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. Dy. CIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 [Bom (FB)], for the proposition that notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law where it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was thus…

Aesthetica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5132/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in case of (i) PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in 432 ITR 84 (Del.); (ii) CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karn); (iii) Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. Dy. CIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 [Bom (FB)], for the proposition that notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law where it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was thus…

Ravi Gehi (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-24 (3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7002/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us, The Assessee Has Also Raised Revised Ground Of Appeal Stating That The Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Dated 18Th March 2015 Is Bad In Law & It Does Not Specify Whether The Penalty Is Levied For Ravi Gehi (Huf)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar Sr. AR CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ook pertaining to copy of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.03.2015. The learned 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 a defect in notice not striking off irrelevant matter, the penalty cannot be levied. The learned Counsel has also referred the Co-ordinate Bench decision in ITA No.4630 & 4631/Mum/2019 and Ors vide order dated 09.07.2021, wherein on identical facts and issue after following the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble jurisdict…

Shri Chandan Bhardwaj, Tarn Taran vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Amritsar

ITA 455/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 22Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE Dr. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 591/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Jinder Pal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.1859, Gali No.4, Ward-3, Kartar Nagar, Chheharta, Hoshiarpur Amritsar. [PAN: ABJPP4463E] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 455/(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Chandan Bhardwaj, Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income H. No. 233/1, VPO Patti, Tax, Circle-I, Distt. Tarn Taran Amritsar. [PAN: AHNPB0637N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. K. R. Jain, Adv. Re…

Sh. Jinder Pal, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(2), Amritsar

ITA 591/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 22Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE Dr. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 591/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Jinder Pal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.1859, Gali No.4, Ward-3, Kartar Nagar, Chheharta, Hoshiarpur Amritsar. [PAN: ABJPP4463E] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 455/(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Chandan Bhardwaj, Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income H. No. 233/1, VPO Patti, Tax, Circle-I, Distt. Tarn Taran Amritsar. [PAN: AHNPB0637N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. K. R. Jain, Adv. Re…

M/S. Pal Synthetics Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty imposed against the assessee is deleted on account of vague and improper notice as well as on merit

ITA 5229/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S Pal Synthetics Ltd. 41, Pal House, Marol Co-Operative Industrial Estate Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400068 Pan: Aabcp9916A ............ Appellant Vs. Dcit-10(3)(2), Room No. 509, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Abhay Agarwal, Ar Respondent By : Sh. R.A. Dhyani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2021 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Challenging The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 17.05.2019 On The Ground Mentioned In The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Abhay Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. R.a. Dhyani, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Pal Synthetics Ltd. 41, Pal House, Marol Co-Operative Industrial Estate Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400068 PAN: AABCP9916A ............ Appellant Vs. DCIT-10(3)(2), Room No. 509, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Abhay Agarwal, AR Respondent by : Sh. R.a. Dhyani, DR Date of hearing : 30/11/2021 Date of pronouncement : 06/12/2021 ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal has been filed by assessee challenging the…

Shri Gufran Ahmed Chaudhari, Valsad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

ITA 623/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. AnupamaSingla– Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.618/SRT/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8th Floor, RBL, 63/751, Chanod Colony, GIDC, s. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-II, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.:ASNPS 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.623/SRT/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Gufan Ahmed Chaudhary, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, 7th Floor, Fortune Square- Prop. Saba…

Shri Prakash F.Singh, Vapi vs. The ITO, Ward-7, Vapi

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

ITA 618/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. AnupamaSingla– Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.618/SRT/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8th Floor, RBL, 63/751, Chanod Colony, GIDC, s. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-II, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.:ASNPS 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.623/SRT/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Gufan Ahmed Chaudhary, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, 7th Floor, Fortune Square- Prop. Saba…

Adl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Hyderabad vs. Avu Engineers Private Limited, Ranga Reddy

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 281/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 281/HYD/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy.Commissioner of M/s.AVU Engineers Income Tax, Vs Private Limited, Circle-1(1), HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: AACCA0083G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR For Assessee : Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, AR Date of Hearing : 07-09-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16-11-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal for AY.2011-12 arises from the CIT(A)-8,…

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad vs. Divi`S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 247/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 247/HYD/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Asst.Commissioner of M/s.Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. Income Tax, Vs HYDERABAD Central Circle-2(1), [PAN: AAACD6745J] HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR For Assessee : NONE Date of Hearing : 08-09-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16-11-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal for AY.2016-17 arises from the CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad’s or…

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6399/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Chandrashekar LSFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication.” Mrs. Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni 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(1)(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. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High…

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Chandrashekar LSFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication.” Mrs. Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni 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(1)(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. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High…

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6354/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Chandrashekar LSFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication.” Mrs. Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni 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(1)(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. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High…

Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni, Pune vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6353/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Chandrashekar LSFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication.” Mrs. Jyoti Ajit Kulkarni 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(1)(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. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High…