← 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

M/S. Bhavasar Kshatriya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Hubballi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 582/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, Advocate
Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Page 8 of 14 ITA Nos. 581 to 583/Bang/2022 Ld.AO to allow the claim as indicated herein above, by granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.13. The Ld.AR also took the plea that, the expenditure incurred in earning of interest from the commercial banks be allowed while ... remanded to the files of the Ld.AO to allow the claim as indicated herein above, by granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the Ld.AO to allow the expenditure incurred while computing income under the head, ‘Income from Other Sources’, in relation to earning

M/S. Bhavasar Kshatriya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Hubballi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, Advocate
Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Page 8 of 14 ITA Nos. 581 to 583/Bang/2022 Ld.AO to allow the claim as indicated herein above, by granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.13. The Ld.AR also took the plea that, the expenditure incurred in earning of interest from the commercial banks be allowed while ... remanded to the files of the Ld.AO to allow the claim as indicated herein above, by granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the Ld.AO to allow the expenditure incurred while computing income under the head, ‘Income from Other Sources’, in relation to earning

Classic Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 678/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

decide the head of income under which the interest income is assessable. Accordingly, the AO may examine this issue afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. With regard to the revaluation loss claimed by the assessee, I am of the view the same should

Bhupati Investments & Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1134/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Bhupati Investments Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-6 B-34/35, 3Rd Floor, 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Paragon Condominium, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Pandurang Budhkar Road, Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacb0441P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Aarti Vissanji Respondent By : Ajay Chandra Date Of Hearing 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit-6, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pr. Cit) Erred In Passing An Order U/S 263 & Directing The Assessing Officer To Modify The Order Dated 16/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Your Appellants Submit That The Order Of The Pr. Cit Is Illegal, Bad In Law & Void & The Same Ought To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

file any reply to the notice dated 03/03/2022 issued by the learned Pr. CIT. Your Appellants submit that they were not provided adequate opportunity of being heard and thus the order passed u/s. 263 is illegal, bad in law and void and the same ought to be quashed

M/S. Sangha Mithra Rural Financial Services, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 787/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sangha Mithra The Assistant Rural Financial Commissioner Of Services, Income Tax #612, 1C Main Road, (Exemptions), Domlur Layout, Circle – 1, Bangalore – 560 071. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecs0038H Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order U/S. 250 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 07/07/2022 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax Nfac, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Is So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar
Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250

Ld.AO for denovo assessment. The Ld.AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order by considering all the evidences and by granting proper opportunity of being heard to assessee in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

M/S. Mysore Mercantile Company Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 551/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Mohammed Mujassim, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 140A(3)Section 221Section 221(1)

during which the default continues; Page 6 of 8 Provided that before levying any such penalty, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard." Quite clearly, in terms of the provisions of Sec. 140A(3) of the Act as existing till 31.03.1989, the Assessing Officer was empowered

K Harish Kumar, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 269/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri K. Harish Kumar, The Assistant No. 152/2, 2Nd Floor, Commissioner Of Wheelers Road, Income Tax, Frazer Town, Circle – 1(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 005. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Agrpk0615Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hemant Pai, Ca : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 18/03/2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)Section 40

year under consideration. Based on all these evidences, the issue would be considered in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Pochiraju Industries Limited, Hosur vs. ACIT Circle 1, Hosur

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

ITA 1719/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1719/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri. S. Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)

Officer is directed to complete the assessment afresh in accordance with law considering the points discussed above and after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 7. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld. PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order passed

Globalworth Securities Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 620/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Globalworth Securities Limited, Acit, Circle-4(1)(1), 716, Neelkanth Corporate Park, Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Kirol Road, Vidyavihar (West), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Mumbai-400086. Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcg 7624 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Aditya Ramachndran, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Aditya Ramachndran, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148(2)

supplied to the assessee. Despite providing es were supplied to the assessee. Despite providing es were supplied to the assessee. Despite providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, sufficient opportunity of being heard, the Ld. DR the Ld. DR could not substantiate whether the reasons which substantiate whether the reasons which

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Astrazenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 82/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

facts of the case. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in giving decision in favour of the assessee without giving opportunity of being heard to the revenue as per provision of sec. 144C(11). 3. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in giving decision merely on the basis

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 170/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

facts of the case. 2. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in giving decision in favour of the assessee without giving opportunity of being heard to the revenue as per provision of sec. 144C(11). 3. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in giving decision merely on the basis

Sunita Chaudhry, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimalchand PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessment order is illegal, invalid and void-ab-initio as the same was passed by the Ld. A.O. without giving the appellant proper opportunity of being heard as the statements of various persons relied upon by the Ld. A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) while making and sustaining the assessment were

Dhana-Shree Developers, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -27, Mumbai

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

ITA 1036/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

restore all the issues to the Dhana–Shree Developers ITA No.1036/Mum./2022 file of learned PCIT for examining them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court

Arabia Beevi, Kuttalam vs. ITO Ward-2, Kumbakonam

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

ITA 581/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.581/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Arabia Beevi, The Income Tax Officer, 4/39, Thaikkal Pattakar Street, Vs. Ward 2, Therzhandur 609 808 Kumbakonam. Kuttalam Taluk. [Pan:Bpspa0967E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 18.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 360 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition To Condone The Delay. Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause & The Ld. Dr Has Not Made Any Serious Objections

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) and furnish complete details for 4 I.T.A

Saharsh Laxmiratan Daga, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 491/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 57Section 57o

further adjudication considering the facts and grounds of the case. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanation submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted

Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

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

ITA 826/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Glaxo Smith Kline The Pcit-8, Pharmaceuticals Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Gsk House, Dr. Annie Besant Vs. Mumbai-400020. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4414 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

order under section 263 of the Act without erred in passing the order under section 263 of the Act without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard and without considering the adjournment letter filed

DCIT - 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3247/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

issue of admission of the additional evidence filed by the appellant is concerned, the same is required to be admitted because adequate opportunity of being heard was not provided to the appellant by the AO. It is seen from the records that various details for finalisation of assessment proceedings were

DCIT - 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3032/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

issue of admission of the additional evidence filed by the appellant is concerned, the same is required to be admitted because adequate opportunity of being heard was not provided to the appellant by the AO. It is seen from the records that various details for finalisation of assessment proceedings were

Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile Known As Siemens Information Systems Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- Circle -8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2947/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

issue of admission of the additional evidence filed by the appellant is concerned, the same is required to be admitted because adequate opportunity of being heard was not provided to the appellant by the AO. It is seen from the records that various details for finalisation of assessment proceedings were

M/S. Tivo Tech Private Limited (Formerly Known As Veveo (India) Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 237/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 37

Ld.AO/TPO for deciding it in conformity with the above referred judgment. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard in accordance with law.” 36. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that deferred receivables would constitute an independent international transaction and the same ... through the rectification petition u/s.154 filed by the assessee and decide the allowability in accordance with law. Needless to say that a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee. 33. With respect to the disallowance of Rs. 2,84,00,052/- made towards trade payables