← 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

Komal Gurumukh Sangtani, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1200/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2010-11
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

further evidences in support of her / his contentions in this regard. Needless to mention that the assessee and her husband be given reasonable opportunity of being heard with regard to adjudication of this issue. 3.11. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is partly allowed and ground No.2 raised

Munnidevi Pawan Kumar Agrawal, Thane vs. ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 432/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemunnidevi Pawankumar Agarwal V. Income Tax Officer – 17(2)(4) 12/201, Flower Valley Mumbai Near Cadbury, Thane - 400601 Pan: Aadpa6937B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Mahita Nair

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair

additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the 3 Munnidevi Pawankumar Agarwal Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with

Abarna & Ananthan, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 268/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 199(1)

intimation u/s 143(1) dated 10.12.2019, the credit for TDS was restricted to Rs. 38,12,470/- without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 3. According to Ld. CIT(A), in the absence of the full facts of the case, it is not clear from the order

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 217 & 218/Bang/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, The Deputy Wing B, Block H2, Commissioner Of Mountain Ash, Income Tax, Manyata Embassy Circle – 2(1)(1), Business Park, Bangalore. Vs. Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan: Aaccc3795R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 28/11/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15. Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. Whether The Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That Payments Made By The Assessee To M/S Cerner Usa For The Employers Executing Certain Works For The Assessee Company Would Not Amount To Income In The Hands Of M/S Cerner India & No Tds Was Liable To Be Made By Treating

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CA
Section 40Section 92C

supra) Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT(supra) having regard to the evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. Respectfully following ... Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT(supra) having regard to the evidences filed by the assessee. 6. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly this ground raised by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. Accordingly the appeal

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 217 & 218/Bang/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, The Deputy Wing B, Block H2, Commissioner Of Mountain Ash, Income Tax, Manyata Embassy Circle – 2(1)(1), Business Park, Bangalore. Vs. Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan: Aaccc3795R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 28/11/2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15. Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. Whether The Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That Payments Made By The Assessee To M/S Cerner Usa For The Employers Executing Certain Works For The Assessee Company Would Not Amount To Income In The Hands Of M/S Cerner India & No Tds Was Liable To Be Made By Treating

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CA
Section 40Section 92C

supra) Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT(supra) having regard to the evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. Respectfully following ... Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT(supra) having regard to the evidences filed by the assessee. 6. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly this ground raised by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. Accordingly the appeal

M/S Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

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. Accordingly these ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Page 17 of 18 IT(TP)A No. 107/Bang/2019

M/S Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2015/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

with a direction to the Assessing Officer to examine the aforesaid issues and redo the assessment afresh as per law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.Pr.CIT, assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR

P. Rajesh Ship Breaking Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1980/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhp. Rajesh Ship Breaking Vs. Acit, Circle 4(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., 61/2 Lakri Aayakar Bhavan, Bunder, Rey Road, M.K. Road, Darukhana, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacp7197G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: C.V. JainFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

upholding the impugned assessment order, passed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, where disputed additions have been made without affording an opportunity of being heard. ITA No.1980/Mum/2021 A.Y.2018-19 2 P. Rajesh Ship Breaking Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 4(3)(2) 2. On the facts, in the circumstances

Cherembane vs. S Bank Limited, Kodugu

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

ITA 488/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 80P(2)

requisite details in support of the claim which would be verified by the Ld.AO in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard to be granted to assessee in accordance with law.” 7. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, we direct

M/S Kennametal Inc, United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the appeal for AY 2012-13

ITA 1658/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan &For Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143(3)

supra) Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT(supra) having regard to the evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.” M/s. Kennametal ... DTAA as to whether the same would amount to royalty. We accordingly remand the issue to the AO. The AO will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee in the set aside proceedings. The appeal of the Assessee is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose. 14. ITA No.1727/Bang/2017

Sunrise Associates, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

ITA 245/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran P. Unavekar, D.R
Section 271

parte without having any reply of the assessee on record. To decide the issue once for all assessee must be provided with an opportunity of being heard. So we hereby allow the additional evidence sought to be led by the assessee and case is remitted back ... decide afresh after considering the additional evidence and by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.07.2022. (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated

Sunrise Associates, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC Delhi, Delhi

ITA 244/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran P. Unavekar, D.R
Section 271

parte without having any reply of the assessee on record. To decide the issue once for all assessee must be provided with an opportunity of being heard. So we hereby allow the additional evidence sought to be led by the assessee and case is remitted back ... decide afresh after considering the additional evidence and by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.07.2022. (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated

Abbasbhai Fidahusein Bhartoo, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 20(1), Mumbai

ITA 237/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 69C

NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"] erred in passing the order dated 14.09.2021 without providing the Appellant an appropriate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the order passed by Ld. 2 Shri Abbasbhai Fidahusein Bhartoo CIT(A) is against the principals of natural justice and the same

Bonny Creation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 199/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bonny Creation Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-9(2)(2), 9-C, Tn Malvi Compound, Room No.601A, 6Th Floor, J.B. Marg, Vs. Nr. Mun School, Aayakar Bhavan, Elphinstone Bridge Road, M.K. Road, Parel East, Mumbai – 400 020 Maharashtra– 400 012 Pan: Aaccb4006A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

after considering the remand reports and explanation submitted by the assessee available at page 1 to 5 of the paper book by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.07.2022. (GAGAN

Income Tax Officer-27(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Aditya Bansilal Damani, Mumbai

ITA 2423/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer- Shri Aditya Bansilal 27(1)(1), Damani, Room No.406, 1301, Luv Kush Towers, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Sindhi Society, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Nr. Vivekanand School, Complex, Chembur, Vashi, Mumbai – 400 071 Navi Mumbai Pan: Affpd0348N Maharashtra – 400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

file back to the AO to investigate in accordance with the observation made in the preceding paras and decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Resultantly, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.07.2022. (GAGAN GOYAL

M/S. Lion Estates and Properties, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 256/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, CA

pass a detailed order on merits after considering the submissions / evidences filed by assessee. Page 3 of 3 Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is remanded to the Ld.CIT

Bhagamandala vs. S Bank Limited, Kodugu

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

ITA 489/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Srinivas T.Bidari, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 80P(2)

requisite details in support of the claim which would be verified by the Ld.AO in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard to be granted to assessee in accordance with law.” 6. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, we direct

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Bollineni Guruppa Naidu, Bangalore

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

ITA 2812/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Bollinni The Deputy Gurappa Naidu, Commissioner Of No. 42, 3Rd Block, Income Tax, 6Th Cross, Circle 3(1)(1), Thyagraj Nagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 028. Pan: Ahkpb8977G Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, Revenue By Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 20/07/2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2015-16 On 31.03.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,20,040/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & The Statutory

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

Ld.AO keeping all the contentions open. The Ld.AO is directed to consider the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order

Ramanamurthy Mathod Srinivasmurthy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 281/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

whole make it clear that CIT before exercising revisionary power to : (i) call for and examine the record, (ii) give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to make or cause to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary. It is only a fulfillment of these twin ... order passed therein by the AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, he after giving assessee an opportunity of being heard after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case

M/S. Yahoo Software Development India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 178/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 178/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Yahoo Software Development India Pvt. Ltd., Torrey Pines, The Joint Embassy Golf Links Commissioner Of Business Park, Income-Tax, Off Indira Nagar – Special Range – 7, Koramangala Vs. Bengaluru. Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan: Aaacy1876D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Amulaya, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25/01/2022 Passed By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Amulaya, Advocate
Section 92A(2)(a)

directed to allow the working capital adjustment on actuals based on the materials already available on record. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Ground no. 3.1 is in respect