← 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

Syed Mohammed Rizwan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(8), Bangalore

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

ITA 696/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Syed Mohammed Rizwan Vs The Income Tax Officer-2(2)(8) No. 193, 1St Main Road Bmtc Depot Sheshadripuram Koramangala Bangalore 560020 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Afvpr3337R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-11, Bangalore Dated 22.07.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. General Ground 1.1 The Order Passed By The Cit(A) 11, Bangalore Is Bad In Law & 'Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Assessment Order Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice 2.1 The Learned Ao Erred In Making The Addition Under Section 68 Amounting To Rs. 3,99,46,180, Rs. 33,69,742 & .The Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 24(B) Amounting To Rs. 2,00,000 In An Undue, Haste & Mechanical Manner Without Properly Considering The Details & Documents Filed During The Assessment. 2.2 The Learned Ao Erred In Passing The Assessment Order & Erred In Making The Impugned Additions Without Issuing Any Show Cause Notice

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24Section 68

reasonable explanation as to what prevented him from producing such documents before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings, especially when sufficient opportunity of being heard given to it by the AO. The appellant has not brought anything to record to show that the documents could not have been ... appellant have duly been considered and taken into account by the AO while framing the assessment order. So the AO had given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant to produce these documents. Since the appellant has failed to provide sufficient cause for his failure to furnish these documents

M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Oil Products, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

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

ITA 489/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms.Padmavathy S.M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Vs Pcit, Central Oil Products C.R. Building D.No. 1-4(9), Manur Fisheries Queen'S Road Road, Kota, Post Kota Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 0576221 Pan – Aaefj1257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocte Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 28.03.2022 Passed For Ay 2018-19 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Pcit) Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocteFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 269Section 269SSection 69C

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 ... Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it/s prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making an enquiry pass an order modifying the assessment made by the Assessing Officer or cancelling the assessment and directing fresh

Etisalat Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 240/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92D

verifying the correctness of the financial data for the four quarters as submitted by the assessee as additional evidence, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. Sasken Technologies Ltd (Sasken) 32. The ld. AR submitted that Sasken. is selected by the assessee ... supra), we are of the view that the comparability of the this company should be considered afresh by the TPO after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. We hold accordingly.” 34. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal we remit the issue of considering the comparability

M/S. Hewlett-Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 3, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2575/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 2575/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biju M.K. , CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

Karnataka High Court in the case of IBM India Ltd (supra). Needless to say that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 36. Ground 11 is consequential and does not warrant separate adjudication. 27 IT(TP)A No. 2575/Bang/2019

DCIT vs. M/S Paresh Exports Pvt. Ltd

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

ITA 252/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 153A

amount of interest and the interest already declared in the return of income by the assessee. The assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in this regard. It is ordered accordingly. This issue is allowed in favour of the revenue for statistical purposes. Unaccounted investment in Gold

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar, Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 697/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

issue. Needless to mention that no order Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar ITA No.697/Mum./2018 CO No. 115/Mum./2019 shall be passed without affording opportunity of being heard to both the sides. (iv) Paresh Babulal Patel 19. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that assessee has taken loan ... seek any other information / document for complete adjudication of this issue. Needless to mention that no order shall be passed without affording opportunity of being heard to both the sides. 31. In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose in view of our aforesaid findings

Asad Naeemuddin Moulvi, Mumbai vs. ITO (WD)- 17(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 3113/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Asad Naeemuddin Moulvi, Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(1)(2), Room No. 8/9/10, 3Rd Floor, Faiz- 4Th Floor, Earnest House, E-Akhtar, 27, Memonwada Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Bhendi Bazar, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Afcpm 8595 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.N. Ladiwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. M.N. Ladiwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

needless to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adeq mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of uate opportunity of being heard. The ground No. . The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

this was in contravention of the provisions of s. 269SS of the IT Act and after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, he came to a conclusion that the assessee was liable to be penalized under s. 27ID of the Act. Accordingly, he imposed a penalty

Hariyappa Kotian, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 430/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 139Section 143Section 153DSection 263

which was not done by the assessing officer.” 6. Accordingly the ld.Pr.CIT issued show cause notice on 15/03/2022 giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard to show cause as to why the impugned order should not be enhanced/modified or set aside for passing a fresh assessment order aftr making ... regarding the nature and source of entries found during search proceedings. 10. It is further directed that the Assessing Officer will provide sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee during the course of the set-aside proceedings.” 7. The ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2550/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

also quasi-judicial proceedings and the rule of nature justice demand that the parties before the CIT(A) should have equal opportunity of being heard. Rule 46A of the Rules prescribes the procedure for filing additional evidence before the CIT(A) and the circumstances under which the additional evidence ... such other evidences the assessee may seek to rely on in support of its claim. The AO will decide the issue after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 34. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Pronounced

M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(4), Banglaoore

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

ITA 2332/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

also quasi-judicial proceedings and the rule of nature justice demand that the parties before the CIT(A) should have equal opportunity of being heard. Rule 46A of the Rules prescribes the procedure for filing additional evidence before the CIT(A) and the circumstances under which the additional evidence ... such other evidences the assessee may seek to rely on in support of its claim. The AO will decide the issue after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 34. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Pronounced

Watanmal (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2407/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T(Tp).A. No. 4/Chny/2018 & I.T.A. No. 2407/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07 & 2008-09 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Watanmal (India) Pvt. Ltd., Old No. 12, New No. 14, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Sripuram Second Street, Royapettah, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 014. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacw6624B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2006- 07 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, Bengaluru Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 254 R.W.S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 27.12.2017. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

with that of the assessee-company. Further, the AO is directed to examine the annual reports and their financials and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. AO is also directed to provide argument wise rebuttals before the said

M/S. Bhavana Co-Operative Credit Society Niyamita, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 361/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhavana Co- Operative Credit The Income-Tax Society Niyamita, Officer, #38, Market Road, Ward – 1, Sirsi – 581 401. Sirsi. Vs. Pan: Aacab5033D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 263Section 68Section 80P

filed by the assessee based on the above direction and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee may be granted physical hearing in order to justify its claim. Page

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 191/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.191/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Limited, Delhi. 59/2, 1St Floor, Gurudas Heritage, Block-B, 100 Feet Ring Road, Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 070. Pan: Aafct 3474 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92Section 92C

therefore, direct the TPO to compute the ALP of the international transaction as per the directions in this order, after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard. 15. We shall now deal with other additions to the total income of the assessee that are challenged by the assessee in this

M/S. Bhavana Co-Operative Credit Society Niyamita, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Sirsi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 739/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhavana Co- Operative Credit The Income-Tax Society Niyamita, Officer, #38, Market Road, Ward – 1, Sirsi – 581 401. Sirsi. Vs. Pan: Aacab5033D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 263Section 68Section 80P

filed by the assessee based on the above direction and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee may be granted physical hearing in order to justify its claim. Page

M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

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.” IT(TP)A No.2243/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 24 36. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that deferred receivables would constitute ... given a credit period of 90 days while computing the interest on receivables. Needless to say that the assessee may be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Depreciation on networking equipment 12. In this regard, it was submitted that the networking equipment broadly comprises of servers, routers, server hard disk

M/S. Ukn Properties 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 1739/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(vii)

kept in work-in-progress based on evidence and decide the allowability accordingly. Needless to say that the assessee may be given opportunity of being heard. Addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(a) 16. During the course of assessment, the AO noticed that the assessee has invested in equity shares

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tpo, Shivamogga vs. M/S. Bhoopalam Marketing Services Private Limited, Shivamogga

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 564/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhoopalam Marketing Services The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of # 107, Subhadra Income Tax, Nilaya, S.P.M. Road, Circle – 1, Shimoga – 577 202. Vs. Shimoga. Pan: Aadcb3705F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2017-18 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Dated 11/03/2022 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 The Assessee Bhoopalam Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. Is A Company Registered Under The Companies Act & Carrying On Page 2 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

direction and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Page 9 of 9 ITA Nos. 375 & 564/Bang/2022 Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee may be granted physical hearing in order to justify its claim. In the result

M/S. Bhoopalam Marketing Services Private Limited, Shimoga vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Shimgoa

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 375/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhoopalam Marketing Services The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of # 107, Subhadra Income Tax, Nilaya, S.P.M. Road, Circle – 1, Shimoga – 577 202. Vs. Shimoga. Pan: Aadcb3705F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2017-18 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Dated 11/03/2022 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 The Assessee Bhoopalam Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. Is A Company Registered Under The Companies Act & Carrying On Page 2 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

direction and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Page 9 of 9 ITA Nos. 375 & 564/Bang/2022 Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee may be granted physical hearing in order to justify its claim. In the result

Metric Stream Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

TPO/AO is directed to compute ALP of the SWD services segment in accordance with the directions contained in this order after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. IT(TP)A No.314/Bang/2022 Page 14 of 19 MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES SEGMENT 16. As far as this segment is concerned ... TPO/AO is directed to compute ALP in the MSS service segment as per directions given in this order after affording the Assessee opportunity of being heard. 26. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. (PADMAVATHY