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)

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited, West Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax/ National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Dcit/ National Faceless Limited B-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) South West Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 12.11.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’).

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

…017} 88 taxmann.com 874 4. Fairdeal Tradelink Company Vs. ITO ITA No.3445/Mum/2016 (Mum) 5. CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginnin Factory {2013} 359 ITR 565 6. CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows {2016} 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) 7. Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT {2021} 434 ITR 1 (Bom) 8. PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. {2021} 432 ITR 84 (Del) 9. PCIT Vs. Minu Bakshi : ITA 57/2021 10. PCIT Vs. Gragerious Projects (P) Ltd. {2025} 475 TIR 546 (Del) 11. CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) LTd. : {2010} 322 ITR 158 (SC) 12. Dilip N Shroff VS. JCIT : {2007} ITR 519 (SC) 13. T Ashok Pai Vs. CIT {2007} 292 ITR 11 (SC)…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Giriraj Enterprises, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 553/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

…section 271AAB under which the penalty proceedings are initiated. Although, the appellant has not stated so but apparently, the appellant is trying to apply the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Sheikh vs DCIT 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that while initiating the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO is required to strike off the irrelevant limb from the penalty notice. A perusal of the said decision suggests that the same was given in the context of section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the Hon. Bombay High Court obse…

M/S Giriraj Enterprises, Pune vs. DCIT, CC.1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

…section 271AAB under which the penalty proceedings are initiated. Although, the appellant has not stated so but apparently, the appellant is trying to apply the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Sheikh vs DCIT 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that while initiating the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO is required to strike off the irrelevant limb from the penalty notice. A perusal of the said decision suggests that the same was given in the context of section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the Hon. Bombay High Court obse…

Pramod Sangwan, Rohtak vs. DCIT, CC-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6119/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…ally mentioning the offence committed by the assessee, would become fatal to the penalty proceedings ? This issue is no longer res integra in view of the Full Bench Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) dated 11.3.2021. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereunder:- Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff Case (supra) on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187. In Dilip N. Shroff case (…

Pramod Sangwan, Rohtak vs. DCIT, CC-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6118/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…ally mentioning the offence committed by the assessee, would become fatal to the penalty proceedings ? This issue is no longer res integra in view of the Full Bench Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) dated 11.3.2021. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereunder:- Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff Case (supra) on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187. In Dilip N. Shroff case (…

Pramod Sangwan, Rohtak vs. DCIT CC-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6117/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…ally mentioning the offence committed by the assessee, would become fatal to the penalty proceedings ? This issue is no longer res integra in view of the Full Bench Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs DCIT reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) dated 11.3.2021. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereunder:- Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff Case (supra) on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187. In Dilip N. Shroff case (…

Late Kulprakash Bhardwaj Through Legal Heir Kartikeya Bhardwaj, Centre Point Hotel, Dharamshala, Kangra vs. PCIT-1, Chanigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1241/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Deshpande, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी लिलत कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं.ITA No. 1241/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Late Kulprakash Bhardwaj Through बनाम PCIT Legal Heir Kartikeya Bhardwaj Chandigarh-1 Centre Point Hotel, Kachari Adda Dharamshala, District Kangra "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFXPB5550J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Subhash Deshpande, C.A (Virtual) रा…

Parveen Tayal, Faridabad Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Faridabad Haryana

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

ITA 2041/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanparveen Tayal, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 2, H.No.246/G/Ist Floor, Faridabad. Sector 10, Dlf, Faridabad – 121 006 (Haryana). (Pan : Agrpt5617P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2024 Date Of Order : 17.07.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am:

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Parveen Tayal, vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2, H.No.246/G/Ist Floor, Faridabad. Sector 10, DLF, Faridabad – 121 006 (Haryana). (PAN : AGRPT5617P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 17.07.2024 Date of Order : 17.07.2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax…

Hotel President, Haldwani vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

ITA 9/DDN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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. Above ratio of the full bench Judgment of the Hon'ble…

Hotel President, Haldwani vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

ITA 11/DDN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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. Above ratio of the full bench Judgment of the Hon'ble…

Hotel President, Haldwani vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

ITA 10/DDN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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. Above ratio of the full bench Judgment of the Hon'ble…

Hitendrakumar Chhaganbhai Ghadiya, Raigad vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assesse ITA Nos

ITA 6061/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bombay High Court.

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…te particulars of income. So accordingly, the said notice is invalid. The copy of the alleged notice is reproduced as below:- 8 ITA 6060 to 6063/Mum /2024 Chhaganbhai Ghaiya & Others Court (Panaji Bench) in the case of Mohammed Farhan A Shaikh vs DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom [FB]). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below:- 180. One course of action before us is curing a defect in the notice by referring to the assessment order, which may or may not contain reasons for the penalty proceedings. The other course of action is the prevention of defect in the notice—and that prevention takes just a tick mark. Pr…