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)

Commissioner of Income Tax (It & Tp) vs. M/S. Dongfang Electric Corporation

ITAT/66/2018HC Calcutta09 Jul 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…h 13); iii) Order dated 26.02.2019 in ITAT No.8 of 2019 Principal CIT-I, Kolkata vs. M/s. SRMB Srijan Ltd.; iv) Order dated 22.04.2019 in ITAT No.272 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Kolkata vs. Bijoy Kumar Agarwal; v) (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) Mr. Md. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Circle-I, Belgaun & Anr. vi) (2005) 278 ITR 32 (Del.) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Auto Lamps Ltd. Discussion & Findings: 16. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 17. Before we p…

Bhavya Shashank Shanbhag, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4630/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2021AY 2005-06

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…rticulars 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), r…

M/S Olive Softgel, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6596/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

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

…d hence, argued for cancellation of the said penalty. We find that this issue is no longer res-integra in view of the Full Bench 3 M/s. Olive Softgel decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT reported in 125 Taxmann.com 253 dated 11/03/2021, wherein it had been held that a defect in the notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in not striking off irrelevant portion thereon would vitiate penalty proceedings. The relevant operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “188. We may, in this context, respectfully observe that a contrav…

Anil Bajaria, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6553/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Anil Bajaria Vs. ACIT-26(1) 197/2, Gujarat Society Kautilya Bhavan Sion (W), Mumbai-400 022 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 PAN/GIR No.AABPB2538B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Shreya Doshi Revenue by Shri Brajendra Kumar Date of Hearing 30/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement 02/ 07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.6553/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2012-13 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap…

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

In the result, cross objection is allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2138/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

…1 ITA 2138/Mum/2018 CO 215/Mum/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.2138/Mum/2018 (Assessment year 2010-11) Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax, vs The Thane District Central Co- Circle-3, Thane operative Bank Limited, 1, Chhatrapti Shivaji Path, Post Box No.11, Thane (W)-400 601 PAN : AAAAT0739N APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. 215/Mum/2019 (Arising out of I.T.A. No.2138/Mum/2018) (Assessment year 2010-11) The Thane District Central Co- vs Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax, operative Bank Limited, 1, Cir…

Hamilton Housewares Pvt.Ltd., Silvasa vs. The DCIT., Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 380/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.380/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial Income Tax, S. Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.353/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial S. Income Tax, Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 & (A.Y.) 2011-12, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Order & Penalty Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act & Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…tated that assessing officer has not ticked any of the limbs in the notice issued under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, therefore, the assessee`s case is covered by the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh, 434 ITR 1 [Bom (FB)], hence assessee`s appeal may be allowed. The ld Counsel also argued on merits of the case and submitted that assessee has neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income therefore, the penalty imposed by the assessing officer may be deleted. 14. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has…

Hamilton Housewares Pvt.Ltd., Silvasa vs. The ACIT., Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 353/SRT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.380/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial Income Tax, S. Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.353/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial S. Income Tax, Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 & (A.Y.) 2011-12, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Order & Penalty Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act & Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…tated that assessing officer has not ticked any of the limbs in the notice issued under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, therefore, the assessee`s case is covered by the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh, 434 ITR 1 [Bom (FB)], hence assessee`s appeal may be allowed. The ld Counsel also argued on merits of the case and submitted that assessee has neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income therefore, the penalty imposed by the assessing officer may be deleted. 14. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has…

Shri Francis Thomas, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) CC- 2(3), Mumbai

ITA 1732/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1732/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Francis Thomas Jcit (Osd)-Cc-2(3) बनाम/ 803, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building 29-C, D-1, Aravali Apartments, Sec-52 Noida, Up-203 303 Pratishtha Bhawan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Pan No.: Adgpt-3709-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2000/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit -Cc-2(3) Shri Francis Thomas 803, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building बनाम/ 29-C, D-1, Aravali Apartments Pratishtha Bhawan, M.K. Road Sec-52 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Noida, Up-203 303 Pan No.: Adgpt-3709-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 06/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132ASection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…to Rs.52.32 Lacs. The aforesaid adjudication has given rise to cross-appeals before us. 6. The Ld. AR assailed penalty on legal grounds by placing reliance on the recent decision of larger bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Mohd. Farhan A.Shaikh V/s DCIT (125 Taxmann.com 253). On merits, Ld. AR submitted that concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income should be in the return of income filed by the assessee. Since returned income filed by the assessee was accepted by Ld. AO, no penalty would be leviable as per the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s SAS Pharmaceutical (…

Shrivallabh V.Shete, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 539/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.538 & 539/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘B’ PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.538 & 539/PUN/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shrivallabh V. Shete, Vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Shree Associates, 24, Pune Bhagwati Complex, 4th Floor, Above Bharti Sah. Bank Ltd., PAN Card Club Road, Baner, Pune 411 045 PAN : AVJPS3017K Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue by Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan Date of hearing 17-05-2021 Date of pronouncement 18-05-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, V…

Shrivallabh V. Shete, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 538/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.538 & 539/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘B’ PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.538 & 539/PUN/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shrivallabh V. Shete, Vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Shree Associates, 24, Pune Bhagwati Complex, 4th Floor, Above Bharti Sah. Bank Ltd., PAN Card Club Road, Baner, Pune 411 045 PAN : AVJPS3017K Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue by Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan Date of hearing 17-05-2021 Date of pronouncement 18-05-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, V…

Vijay Mohan Harde, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 588/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.588/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.588/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vijay Mohan Harde, Vs. ACIT, Ahmednagar A/P.Deolali, Tal. Pravra, Dist. Rahuri PAN : ABEPH4172K Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri S.N. Puranik Revenue by Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of hearing 13-05-2021 Date of pronouncement 17-05-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 04-11-2016 passed by the CIT(A)-2, Pune confirming…

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―E‖: NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mr. Nikhil Sawhney ACIT, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. PAN: AAUPS0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.; Ms. Tejasvi Jain, C.A.; & Ms. Somya Jain, C.A. Revenue by: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13/08/2020 Date of pronouncement /08/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 01. This appeal is filed by Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, individual (The Appellant) against the or…

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT