“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

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 654/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

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

Mukand Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre., New Delhi

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

ITA 2591/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). 3. From The Perusal Of The Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Before Us, It Is Observed That Assessee Had Not Opted For Vsvs To Settle The Dispute Arising In The Assessment Framed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 30.03.2022. Hence, It Can Be Safely Concluded That Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Dismissing The Appeal On Erroneous Assumption Of Facts. Hence, We Deem It Fit & Proper To Remand This Appeal To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) For De Novo Adjudication In Accordance With Law. Assessee Is At Liberty To Furnish Further Evidences, If Any, In Support Of His Contentions. It Is Needless To Mention That Assessee Be Given Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. Accordingly, This Ground Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes. 4. In The Result, The Appeal File By The Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 143(3)Section 147

liberty to furnish further evidences, if any, in support of his contentions. It is needless to mention that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the appeal file by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Shri Bhanwarlal M. Harsh, Thane vs. Dy CIT CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Bhanwarlal M Shah Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) A/2, 406, Runwal Plaza, Air India Building Nr. Koresh India Vartak Nariman Point, Nagar, Thane (West) Mumbai - 400021 400606 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacph5666F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Manoj MundraFor Respondent: J. Saravanan

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

DCIT, CC-3(3) under section 271 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 ... According to it, "the socalled ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity

M/S Business India, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 12 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6733/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: The Learned Cit(A). However, We Are Of The Opinion That The Assessee Should Be Imposed A Cost For Being Delinquent Both Before The Learned Cit(A) & Before The Itat. Accordingly We Impose A Cost Of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) Upon The Assessee, Which Shall Be Paid To The Credit Of The Income Tax Department As “Other Fees’’ Within One Month From The Date Of Receipt Of This Order By The Assessee.

both the years and restore all the issues in both the years to his file for adjudicating them afresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeals

Sanhita Ghosh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-29(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 557/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 68

before me to the ld. AO for denevo assessment after considering the submissions to be made by the assessee on being provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and should not take adjournment unless otherwise required on reasonable cause. In case the assessee

Sanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Thane vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax 1, Thane

In the result we allow the ground no

ITA 740/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Sanjay Society Building, Uttam Naka, Bhayander, Thane-401106. Pan: Aacas3872P ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit-1, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, Ca Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Kailash Kanojia- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 19061 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 17.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Pcit-1, Thane Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That All The Details/ Information Relating To Interest Income Were Submitted During The Scrutiny

For Appellant: Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kailash Kanojia- CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

Rocksalt Interactive Games Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Rocksalt Interactive Income Tax Officer, Vs. Games Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aafcr3033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.30.03.2020 Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-3, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 263Section 72Section 73Section 73ASection 74Section 74ASection 80

that the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act dated 30.03.2020 is liable to be set-aside on the ground that no valid opportunity of being heard has been given to the assessee. (b) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. Pr. CIT, before passing the revision order, ought ... have given fresh opportunity of being heard to the assessee after the date of dropping of the proposed action u/s. 154 of the Act i.e., after 17.03.2020. (c) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. Pr. CIT ought to have appreciated that the impugned order

Group M Media India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Comm. of Income Tax-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1296/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhgroup M Media India Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax-1(3)(1), 7Th & 8Th Floor, A Wing, Room No. 330, 3 Rd Floor, The Orb, Jw Marriott Aayakar Bhavan, Sahar, Andheri (W), Churchage, Mumbai Mumbai – 400099 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari & M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Ashok Kumar Kardam

For Appellant: Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44A

issued on 22 March 2022 and 263 order was passed with 5 days i.c. on 27 March 2022 thereon not granting sufficient opportunity of being heard and making ensure proceedings bad in law. On merits of the issues involved in the revision proceedings 5. erred in stating that software expenses

Red Monster Mobile Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400021 vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blered Monster Mobile Private Limited V. Pr.Cit –3 213, Raheja Chambers Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcr9963G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

aside and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the 6 Red Monster Mobile Private Limited above said transactions in detail after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds:- “On the facts and in the circumstances

Dheeraj Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai

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

ITA 886/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledheeraj Babulal Shah V. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 17 C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co.Llp (Ca) Room No. 120, 1St Floor {Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.} Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Arwps1458D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajkumar Singh Department Represented By : Shri S.H. Usmani

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

correct conclusion as per law and frame the assessment denovo, keeping in mind the observations made in his order, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - “1. That on facts and circumstances

Sahana Builders Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 52, Mumbai

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

ITA 2217/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 402, Plot No.54, Sagar Avenue, S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058. Pan: Aahcs4782P ...... Appellant Vs. Cit(A)-52, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Dy.Cit-4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 402, Plot No.54B, Junction Of S.V. Road & Lallubhai Park, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058. Pan: Aahcs4782P ...... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Amit Bothra & Ms. Manish Chandak, Ar Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. Dr M/S Sahana Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Bothra &For Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

consideration of the matter, keeping in view the settled legal position as contended by assessee after giving proper opportunity of being heard and dispose of the same within six months. This ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 24. Ground No.4 pertains to confirmation of disallowance of handling charges

M/S Cyber Infosystem and Technologies P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 921/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Cyber Infosystem Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3) & Technologies Pvt R.No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Ltd,396, Kamath Air India Bldg, Industrial Estate, Veer Nariman Point, Savarkar Marg, Mumbai – 400021. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc2176K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Priyavart Gupta.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Deepika Arora.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A))- 53, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S Cyber Infosystem & Technologies P Ltd, Mumbai. 1) That, The Notice Issued Under Section 271(1)(C) Read With Section 274 Of The Act & The Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Are Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Mr.Priyavart Gupta.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Deepika Arora.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

receiver. Further, in order to ensure that the ends of justice are met and the established judicial rule of audi altram partem i.e., opportunity of being heard were also afforded to the assessee company, notice u/s 142(1) dated 04.12.2017 fixing the date of hearing on 12.12.2017 was also issued ... Cyber Infosystem & Technologies P Ltd, Mumbai. assessee company Shri Akshay Patil and Shri Narayan Ghumatkar. These notices highlighted the complete details of opportunities of being heard that were afforded to the assessee company but not availed by the assessee company or its Directors were also clearly mentioned. Further the Notice

M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3 (2), Mumbai

ITA 349/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

1016/Mum/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 all rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open. The Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. In terms of the aforesaid directions, this issue is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Ground

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 2(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4322/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

therefore, restore this issue to the file of the A.O. to be decided afresh without applying Rule 8D after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground no.2 with all its sub-grounds are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.” 11. Respectfully following the above decision

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2218/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Section 14A

Wns Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Dilhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

before imputing a transfer pricing adjustment inrespect of the transaction of valuation of business and commercial rights purchased, thereby denying the Appellant an opportunity of being heard. 6. On the fact and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO learned AO Hon'ble DRP has erred ... issued by the expert by takingbenefit of hindsight and incorrect application of valuation principles based on assumptionsand speculations without allowing the Appellant an opportunity of being heard. 4 ITA No. 1259/Mum/2021-WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. b. erroneously not following any of the methods prescribed under Section

The Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce Co.Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The DCIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 189/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh assessment after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is squarely ... order of PCIT but the AO is free to examine the aspect of claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, we affirm the order of PCIT and dismiss this appeal of assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed

Mora] Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 155/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

allow the claim of the assessee as per the above direction. It is needless to say that the assessee may be given proper opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 16. With regard to Ground no 3, this ground also dismissed

Moraj Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. Dclt Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 154/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

Moraj Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 153/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22