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 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 367,154 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 274 Section 143(3)Section 270A Section 153A Section 250 Section 147 Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(8)section 271(l)record date section 271(l)(c)section 274 section 270a(9)furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income concealment of income non-application of mind penalty proceedings initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

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

Crystal Thermotech Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner Pf Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 80/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 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. 80/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2017-18) Crystal Thermotech Private Limited, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. 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 10/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/06/2025…

Crystal Thermotech Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 79/RAN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 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. 79/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2016-17) Crystal Thermotech Private Limited, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. 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 10/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/06/2025…

St. Joshephs Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

ITA 3296/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. (Pan: Aamts 3888 G) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री जगदीश, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph's Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. (PAN: AAMTS 3888 G) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) v. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3295 to 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:…

St. Josephs Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. Dcot. Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3295/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…t are of no significance. Further, such invalid notice would cause prejudice to the assessee. For this proposition, we place our reliance on the Full Bench Decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (FB), which held as under “188. We may, in this context, respectfully observe that a contravention of a mandatory condition or requirement for a communication to be valid communication is fatal, with no further proof. That said, even if the notice contains no caveat that the ITA Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21) St. Joseph’s E…

St. Josephs Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

ITA 3294/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aamts 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री जगदीश, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph's Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [PAN: AAMTS 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) v. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3295 to 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year:…

St.Josephs Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3293/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani, Adipur vs. ITO Ward - 1, Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani Vs. Ito, Ward - 1 Plot No. 368, Wd – 2/B, Adipur – Kutch-370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं.At/Pan/Gir No.: Afvpd8813Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH(SMC), RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 51/RJT/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani Vs. ITO, Ward - 1 Plot No. 368, Wd – 2/B, Adipur – Kutch-370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं.At/PAN/GIR No.: AFVPD8813Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.R. Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assess…

Mr Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Pune vs. ITO Ward 12(3), Pune

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

ITA 2483/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Singha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…le Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Times Global Broadcasting Ltd., Income Tax appeal No.1943 of 2018 order dated 27.02.2025 has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal by following the full bench decision passed in the case of Mohammed Farhan vs. DCIT [2021] 125 Taxmann.com 253 (Bombay). Accordingly, Ld. AR submitted 7 before the bench that the issue is covered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court judgement passed in the case of DCIT vs. Times Global Broadcasting Ltd. order dated 27.02.2025 supra and prayed to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the ground of in correct notice. 7…

Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralcircle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 88/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 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. 88/Ran/2022 (Assessment Year-2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, D.C.I.T., CA Akshay Ringasia, Suite No. 3, 2nd Central Circle, Vs. Floor, Aviskar Bumra Enclave, Diagonal Jamshedpur. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001. PAN No. AAWPA 4880 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 22/05/2025 Date of pronouncement 22/05/…

Ramesh Kumar, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer, Karnal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1279/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2012-13) Ramesh Kumar, House No.2027, Opposite Civil Hospital, Nissing, Karnal, Haryana 132024 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Azopk-6953-F बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Sector 12, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Karnal, Haryana 132001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri R R Singla, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 20/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 04.01.2025, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri R R Singla, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That In Assessment Proceedings U/S. 144/147 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Addition Was Made On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits Of Rs.28,50,000/- In Punjab National Bank, Karnal. The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Notices U/S. 148 Of The Act As Parallel Proceedings U/S. 148 R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri R R Singla, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.1279/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2012-13) Ramesh Kumar, House No.2027, Opposite Civil Hospital, Nissing, Karnal, Haryana 132024 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN: AZOPK-6953-F बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Sector 12, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Karnal, Haryana 132001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri R R Singla, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 20/05/202…

Bright Enterprises Private Limited Mbd House, Gulab Bhawan Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(1) New Delhi, Jao DCIT 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4792/DEL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalbright Enterprises Private Acit, Limited, Circle-5(1), Mbd House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, Jao Dcit, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi.

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

…me. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that this issue is now settled by various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and he relied upon the Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT as reported in [2021] 125 Taxmann.com 253 (Bombay) vide order dated 11/03/2021 wherein, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has considered the decisions Bright Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar.). The Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PC…

T.V. Today Network Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.T. V. Today Network Ltd, Vs. Acit, F-26, First Floor, Connaught Circle-25(1), Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabct0424B

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER T. V. Today Network Ltd, Vs. ACIT, F-26, First Floor, Connaught Circle-25(1), Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AABCT0424B Assessee by : Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv Revenue by: Ms Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date of pronouncement 14/05/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.554/Del/2025 for AY 2011-12, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi [hereinafter refe…

Sbs Transpole Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. NFAC, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3690/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)

…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 (s…

Sbs Transpole Logistics Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 22(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)

Korbusier Kinema Private Limited, Juhu Mumbai vs. NFAC ACIT Cir 15(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1016/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Ld. A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d, challenged the decision of the Ld. Commissioner on various aspects including notice issued u/s 274 of the Act dated 27.12.2018 and by relying on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB). 8. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2024) 461 ITR 483 (Bom.) passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, concerning the identical issue, wherein it was held that if an Assessee does not challenge the validity of…

Shiv Kumar Soni, Dehradun vs. ACIT, CC, Dehradun

ITA 194/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 271(1)(c)

…essing Officer had indeed incorporated the clinching expression “and” in the twin show-cause notices, and therefore, we ought to uphold the same. 4. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing above contention in light of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (FB) and PCIT Vs. Shyam Sundar Jindal (2025) 172 taxmann.com 164(SC), having already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that such a failure on the Assessing 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.193 & 194/DDN/2024 Officer’s part indeed vitiates the entire penalty proceedings. We adopt the very reason mutatis mutandis herein to…

Shiv Kumar Soni, Dehradun vs. Acitm Circle, Dehradun

ITA 193/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 271(1)(c)

Kunvarji Bhachu Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 31(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1190/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) Kunvarji Bhachu Shah V/S. Acit-31(2), Mumbai Flat 301, Shivaratan बिधम Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Building, Hardevibai Chs, Kurla Complex, Bandra Caves Road, Near Kulkarni East, Mumbai-400051 Hospital, Jogeshwari East S.O., Mumbai-400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacps2608A Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivasthavFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…efault of the assessee is being treated as concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohammed Farhan A Shaikh v/s DCIT 434 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that defect of not striking off the irrelevant matter in the notice would vitiate the penalty proceedings. P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2012-13 Kunvarji Bhachu Shah 8. In the present case also, the assessment order does not mention either of the grounds for initiation of the penalty and in the penalty notice issued by the Ld.AO, both…

Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1502/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 Superfine Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, J-13, Lal Kothi Yojna, Nehru Sahakar Marge, jaipur. बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle6, Jaipur. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AALCS0201P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assess…

Shivaji Laxman Sahane, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1078/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1078/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S.ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

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

…and two others in ITA Nos.6584/Mum/2011 to ITA No.6586/Mum/2011 order dated 13.12.2024 wherein the Coordinate Bench has referred to the Full Bench judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT reported in (2021) 434 ITR 1 and held that since the AO has not levelled specific charge against the assessee in the show cause notice issued for initiating the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, such proceedings are invalid and the impugned penalty deserves to be deleted. 3 Shavaji Laxman Sahane 5. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative referring to the judgment…