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

M.Lakhamsi& Co., Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4304/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Vajani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4304/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M. Lakhamsi & Co. 505, Churchgate Chambers, 5, New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020, Maharashtra v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABFM5192L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Mr. Ketan Vajani, CA Respondent by : Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR) Date of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date of…

Mukon Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1152/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivashtav,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1152/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Mukon Constructions Private v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle- 31A, 3rd Floor, Tahnee Heights, 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, 66 Nepean Road, Malabar Hill Mumbai 400020, S.O., Mumbai 400 006, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADCM1616L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Siddharth Srivashtav,AR Respondent by : Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR) Date of Hearing 1…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. DCIT, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAUPS0222Q Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Ms. Somya Jain, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/10/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.1249/Del/2017 for AY 2013-14, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida [hereinafter referred to…

Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Pune

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

ITA 1608/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Nikhil Mutha
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1608/PUN/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 3rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Ward-8(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune 411 014 Maharashtra PAN : AADCB6018P Appellant Respondent : Appellant by Shri Nikhil Mutha Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Dhivare Date of hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 09.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 08.05.202…

Mr. Arumugasamy Vasantha Vikas, Virdhunagar vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-4, Madurai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Stay

ITA 2108/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Rama Krishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2107 & 2108/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 & Stay Petition Nos.76 & 77/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 v. Mr. Arumugasamy Vasantha Vikas, The ITO, 43-A, Kaliamman Kovil Street, Corporate Ward-4, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar-626 123. Madurai-625 002. [PAN:ADGPV 6980 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""य…

Mr. Arumugasamy Vasantha Vikas, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-4., Madurai, Mudrai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Stay

ITA 2107/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Rama Krishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2107 & 2108/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 & Stay Petition Nos.76 & 77/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 v. Mr. Arumugasamy Vasantha Vikas, The ITO, 43-A, Kaliamman Kovil Street, Corporate Ward-4, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar-626 123. Madurai-625 002. [PAN:ADGPV 6980 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""य…

Crystal Thermotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 78/Ran/2024 (Assessment Year-2018-19) Crystal Thermotech Private Limited, A.C.I.T., 7/1A, Grant Lane, 1st Floor, Room No.- Central Circle, Vs. 1C, West Bengal-700012. Jamshedpur. PAN No. AAFCC 4542 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 07/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This appeal by the asses…

Kamuben Ramanlal Patel, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 913/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kamble& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.913/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Smt. Kamuben Ramanlal Patel Income Tax Officer, Daman, बनाम/ House No.1, Varkund, Income Tax Department, Jeevanji Vs. Mithanagar, Nani Daman, Hotel Building, Kathiria Road, Daman & Diu-396 210 Nani Daman, Daman & Diu- -396210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acppk1885N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Hemant Suthar, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shriajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

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

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS.SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.913/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid hearing) Smt. Kamuben Ramanlal Patel Income Tax Officer, Daman, बनाम/ House No.1, Varkund, Income Tax Department, Jeevanji Vs. Mithanagar, Nani Daman, Hotel Building, Kathiria Road, Daman and Diu-396 210 Nani Daman, Daman and Diu- -396210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ACPPK1885N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant by Shri Hemant Suthar, CA राज"कीओरसे /Respondent by…

Dialnet Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 7(3), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7885/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

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

…ITA No. 7885/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2015-16 Dial net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. PAN: AABCD 5472 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Harsh Gollmudi, Adv. Department represented by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 19.09.2025 O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M: This appeal, preferred by the assessee for…

Amritabhagwati Tradewing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4802/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla (virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.4802/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Amritabhagwati Tradewing Pvt. vs DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai Ltd, 11, Anand Mangal Shanti Nagar CHS Ltd, Jain Mandir Road, Sector 3, Mira Road (East), Thane-401 107 PAN: AACCA5856B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Mangla (virtually appear) Respondent by : Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR) Date of hearing : 11/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 17/09/2025 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM): Th…

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1923/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…irect the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 6.1 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. 7. In the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance C…

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1921/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…irect the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 6.1 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. 7. In the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance C…

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1920/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…irect the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 6.1 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. 7. In the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance C…

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1919/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…irect the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 6.1 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. 7. In the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance C…

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1918/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…irect the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 6.1 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. 7. In the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance C…

Income-Tax Officer-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vibgyor Texotech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4705/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 4705/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO-8(3)(1), Room No. 617, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Vs. Vibgyor Texotech Ltd., 309, Navyug, 167 Tokersi Jivraj Road, Sewree, Mumbai-400015. PAN NO. AACCV 0752 D Respondent Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : None : Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR : 09/09/2025 : 09/09/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed aga…

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…ings on the ground that the inappropriate words in the penalty notice have not been struck off by the Assessing Officer. Relying on various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaik vs. DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom), it was argued that since the inappropriate words have not been SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 struck off, therefore, the levy of penalty is invalid and without jurisdiction since the notice u/s 274 is not in accordance with law. 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the assessee relying on various decisions submitted that full particula…

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1636/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…ings on the ground that the inappropriate words in the penalty notice have not been struck off by the Assessing Officer. Relying on various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaik vs. DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom), it was argued that since the inappropriate words have not been SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 struck off, therefore, the levy of penalty is invalid and without jurisdiction since the notice u/s 274 is not in accordance with law. 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the assessee relying on various decisions submitted that full particula…

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1635/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…ings on the ground that the inappropriate words in the penalty notice have not been struck off by the Assessing Officer. Relying on various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaik vs. DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom), it was argued that since the inappropriate words have not been SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 struck off, therefore, the levy of penalty is invalid and without jurisdiction since the notice u/s 274 is not in accordance with law. 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the assessee relying on various decisions submitted that full particula…

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

ITA 1634/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…ings on the ground that the inappropriate words in the penalty notice have not been struck off by the Assessing Officer. Relying on various decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaik vs. DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom), it was argued that since the inappropriate words have not been struck off, therefore, the levy of penalty is invalid and without jurisdiction since the notice u/s 274 is not in accordance with law. 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the assessee relying on various decisions submitted that full particulars were given and the Ld.…