← All Phrases

“opportunity of being heard”

Natural JusticeAudi Alteram PartemAudi Alteram Partem22,508 judgments

The decision most relied on for opportunity of being heard is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on opportunity of being heard

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Tin Box Company v. CIT
249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court
624
citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

CIT v. Vikas Polymers
341 ITR 537 · 2012 · High Court
318
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer did not record an enquiry and its satisfactory answer in the assessment order, provided such an enquiry was conducted. For revision under Section 263, the Commissioner must also provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and examine their explanation.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi
334 ITR 262 · 2011 · Supreme Court
211
citing judgments

If an assessee was denied an adequate opportunity of being heard, including the right to cross-examine a witness, the assessment should be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity, even if the assessee failed to appear at an appellate stage. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, should ensure such matters are re-adjudicated.

Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT
119 ITR 996 · 1979 · Supreme Court
205
citing judgments

An assessment cannot be reopened under Section 147/148 based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer on material already considered during the original assessment, clarifying the scope of 'escaped assessment'.

Judgments citing opportunity of being heard

Skyline Millars Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumabi 6, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is fully allowed

ITA 776/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalskyline Millars Ltd. 24 Po Box No. 9208, Kurla Kirol Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Aaact2755J ...... Appellant Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Room No. 501, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Dalpat Shah, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Order U/Sec. 263 Of The Income Tax Act Is Bad-In-Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Dalpat Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

revenue and liable for revision in terms of section 263 of the Act. 6. In this connection, you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard and your case is fixed for hearing/making submission online on/on or before 21.03.2022 at 12.30 PM. In case of non-compliance, it will

M/S Veto Switchgears and Cables Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Veto Switchgears Vs. Acit, 13(3)(2) & Cables Limited Room No. 229, 2 Nd Floor, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashtra Maharishi Karve Road, 400 058 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccv4990K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

Mumbai ("the Id. CIT(A)") erred in facts and law in passing the order u/s 250 of the Act without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 2(a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in confirming the action of the Id. Assessing Officer in disallowing Employees' Provident

Viveck Mathreja, Mumbai vs. ACIT National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalviveck Mathreja Vs. Acit, National Face Less Plot No. 5, Trishul Assessment Centre Hatkesh Co-Op, Hsg.Sty, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Road No. 6, Jvpd, Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Ville Parle (W), Complex, Bandra Mumbai – 400 056 Mumbai - 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Acxpm8278M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N.R. AggarwalFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before

Narendra Thacker, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2490/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2490/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Narendra Thacker बिधम/ Ito-27(2)(4) 303-B Wing Bellona Bldg, Tower No.6, Fourth Floor, Vs. 90 Ft Road, Pant Nagar, Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai- Complex, Vashi, Navi 400075. Mumbai-4000703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt1799E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. However, On Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, It Is Noted That The Main Grievance Of Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ao In Not Giving Proper Opportunity Before Making An Addition Of Rs.4,25,000/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar
Section 143(1)

assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee pleaded that he did not get proper opportunity of being heard by the AO during the assessment proceedings [ground no. 3 before the Ld. CIT(A)]. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that ... authority, that reads thus : "We will straightway agree with the assessee's submission that the ITO had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence

Sakshi Rajan Gupta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2095/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2095/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sakshi Rajan Gupta बिधम/ Acit Circle Int Tax- 6, Pankaj Mahal, 2Nd Floor, 1(3)(1) Vs. Jt Siphimalani Marg, Mumbai. Churchgate-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afjpg9115Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pritesh Joshi Revenue By: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42 Dated 09.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ao In Not Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee Before Passing The Assessment Order Wherein He Has Disallowed The Expenses Of Rs.28,79,641/- Claimed By The Assessee (Non-Resident).

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. DR)

authority, that reads thus : "We will straightway agree with the assessee's submission that the ITO had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard." That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence ... aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. 2. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed. The first question reads thus

I.B.Commercial Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dcita Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2029/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(2)Section 68

order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to his file for examining it afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the Ld CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 5. We shall now take up the appeal filed ... order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to his file for examining it afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the Ld CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 8. We shall now take up the appeal filed

Sushil Kumar Paul, Siliguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2274/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 271A

order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made- (a) by the Income- tax Officer, where the penalty exceeds ten thousand ... order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” To comply with this requirement the notice u/s 274 should be clear enough to convey the assessee about charge which is to be leveled

M/S. Aconite Commotrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2106/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 263

that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the ld. AO without providing the appellant sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2 AY: 2009-10 M/s. Aconite Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. iii. For that the order passed ... confirming the action of the AO in completing the assessment in post haste u/s 144 without allowing the assessee any proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. vi. For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in making the addition of the share capital

Samriddhi Petroproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15 Samriddhi Petroproducts Vs. Dy. C.I.T Private Limited Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aarcs2499F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Mohd Afzal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Wholesale & Retail Trade Of Auto Gas. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2014 Declaring Nil Income After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Losses Of Rs.28,54,332/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) On 12.09.2016 Determining The Total Income At Rs.2,16,571/-. Subsequently, The Learned Cit Assumed

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd AfzalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

abeyance since the assessee has challenged the 263 proceedings, the CIT(A)- NFAC has passed the order ex-parte without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, CIT(A)-NFAC has not passed a speaking order while dismissing the appeal of the assessee. He accordingly submitted ... matter should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, while supporting the order of CIT(A)-NFAC drew the attention

Goldstone Trading Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -9 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2043/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2006-07
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of AO. The assessee should be provided with adequate opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

M/S. Privilage Power & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1387/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ld Cit(A) & Hence The First Appellate

Section 115J

aside and all the issues are restored to his file for adjudicating them afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the Ld CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Vighnaharata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1284/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vighnaharata Trust Cit (Exemption) 1605/06 Hurrah, City Of Joy, Room No-617, 6Th Floor, Near Railway Station, Lbs Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Marg, Mulund West, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 400 080 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatv8040K Assessee By : Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 292B

proceedings de novo. The assessment proceedings shall be completed after proper examination of all the relevant issues, and after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 11. Therefore, the assessee is aggrieved with that order and is in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative referred to the detailed

M/S. About U Fashions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 2150/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 14ASection 68

learned CIT(A) in A.Y. 2011-12 and restore all the issues to his file for examining it afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the learned CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 6. We shall now take up the appeal filed by the assessee

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) (International Taxation), Bangalore

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

ITA 97/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

IT(IT)A No.1190 & 1295/Bang/2014, IT(IT)A No.97/Bang/2019, IT(IT)A No.949 &950/Bang/2017 M/s. Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

M/S Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payers Unit (Ltu) Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3250/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3250/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80G

amounting to INR 86,24,00,000 as revenue receipt without citing any valid basis. 7.3 Ld AO/DRP erred in not providing proper opportunity of being heard/ for filing submissions in relation to taxability of subvention fee. 7.4 Ld. AO/TPO/DRP have erred in bringing to tax entire amount of subvention ... amounting to INR 86,24,00,000 as revenue receipt without citing any valid basis. 7.3 Ld AO/DRP erred in not providing proper opportunity of being heard/ for filing submissions in relation to taxability of subvention fee. 7.4 Ld. AO/TPO/DRP have erred in bringing to tax entire amount of subvention

Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 950/BANG/2017[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

IT(IT)A No.1190 & 1295/Bang/2014, IT(IT)A No.97/Bang/2019, IT(IT)A No.949 &950/Bang/2017 M/s. Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 949/BANG/2017[2014 - 15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

IT(IT)A No.1190 & 1295/Bang/2014, IT(IT)A No.97/Bang/2019, IT(IT)A No.949 &950/Bang/2017 M/s. Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Deputy Director of Income Tax(International Taxation), Bangalore vs. M/S Google India P Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 1295/BANG/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

IT(IT)A No.1190 & 1295/Bang/2014, IT(IT)A No.97/Bang/2019, IT(IT)A No.949 &950/Bang/2017 M/s. Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Google India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Bangalore

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

ITA 1190/BANG/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

IT(IT)A No.1190 & 1295/Bang/2014, IT(IT)A No.97/Bang/2019, IT(IT)A No.949 &950/Bang/2017 M/s. Google India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Mohamed Hussain Mahamed Harisai, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(5), Chennai

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

ITA 655/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

record his statement, allow to cross examine the assessee, if required, and thereafter, decide the issue in accordance with law after allowing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 14th