← 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

Amjad Anwar Shahbazker, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of AO for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1502/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(2)

records submitted by the assessee on merit and verify the same. It is needless to say that assessee may be given a proper opportunity of being heard. In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of AO for statistical purpose and ground raised

Vama Pvt Ltd. ( Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-5 (3), Mumbai

In the result, Miscellaneous Application stands allowed as above in as much as ITA No

ITA 7387/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7387/Mum/2019 & Vama Departmental Vs. Acit, Circle – 5(3) Store Pvt Ltd., Room No. 573, 5Th (Now Known As Vama Floor, Aayakar Pvt Ltd.) Bhavan, Mk Road, Kanchanjunga, 72, Mumbai – 400020. Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv1262E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Prakash Jotwani & Ms.Yasmin Carnac.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Prakash Jotwani &For Respondent: Mr.S.N Kabra.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 234A

parte Order 1. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and passing an exparte order, without giving the Appellant sufficient opportunity of being heard and erred in not granting time to the Appellant for appointing professional lawyers to represent the case properly. 2. The CIT(A) erred

Smt Premlata V Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6820/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsmt. Premlata V. Jain Vs. Ito, Ward – 26(2)(4) 3/95, Mhb Colony, C-11, Room – 707 Swadeshi Mill 7Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Compound, Sion, Bhavan,Bkc,Bandra(E), Chunabhatti, Mumbai- 400051. Mumbai – 400022. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adcpj8829K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Rashmi Vyas.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 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)-48, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Vyas.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Pramod Nikalje.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68

NATURAL JUSTICE 1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income - tax (Appeals) - 38, Mumbai [Ld CIT (A)"] erred in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing the appellate order. 1.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case

Tesco Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 719/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

details of sub-contracting expenses given below:- IT(TP)A No.719/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 10 The assessee may be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard, before deciding the issue. Ordered accordingly. Restriction of disallowance u/s. 10AA of the Act (Ground No.13) 13. The AO in the assessment reduced the following

Tesco Bangalore Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2492/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)

contracting expenses given below:- IT(TP)A No.2492/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 9 Needless to mention that assessee may be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. Restriction of disallowance u/s. 10AA of the Act to the extent of that claimed in the return of income (Ground No.12

ITO-12(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Grd Steelindustries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1918/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ito-12(2)(3), M/S Grd Steel Industries Private Room No. 226, 2Nd Floor, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Vs. 203, Tirupati Udyog, I B Patel Road, Mumbai-400020. Off W E Highway Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aaccn 8254 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Haresh P. Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Haresh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

compliance of fresh after compliance of Rule 46A of Income Income-Tax Rules, 1962 for providing adequate Tax Rules, 1962 for providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer. The ground . The ground No. 1 (One) of the appeal ... file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding a the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after providing adequate providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer as well as to the as well as to the assessee. The assessee is required

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 374/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

order to decide the eligibility for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act as per law. The AO is directed accordingly, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Revenue share fee from food and beverage and retails outlets 7. The Assessee

M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 191/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

order to decide the eligibility for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act as per law. The AO is directed accordingly, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Revenue share fee from food and beverage and retails outlets 7. The Assessee

M/S. Sangeeta Metal (India), Mumbai vs. ACIT -19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 141/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () M/S Sangeeta Metal (India) Vs Acit-19(3), Mumbai Room No.206, 2Nd Floor, Matru 26/24, Ground Floor, 6B/1 Sindhi Lane, Mumbai-400 004 Mandir Building, Tardeo Road Pan : Aaffs6604P Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

such bogus purchases at the same rate as that of the other genuine purchases. Needless to add the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. Learned Counsel of the assessee fairly agreed to the above proposition.” 9. We do not find any infirmity in aforementioned decision and thereby

M/S. Puttur City Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Puttur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result, (i) ITA No

ITA 73/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT -DR
Section 133A

receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making such assessment or reassessment: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in respect of an assessment made on or before ... section provides that on receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer may after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making such assessment or re-assessment. It has been provided in the proviso to the new section that

M/S. Puttur City Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Puttur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result, (i) ITA No

ITA 72/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT -DR
Section 133A

receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making such assessment or reassessment: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in respect of an assessment made on or before ... section provides that on receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer may after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making such assessment or re-assessment. It has been provided in the proviso to the new section that

M/S. Puttur City Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Puttur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result, (i) ITA No

ITA 71/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT -DR
Section 133A

receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making such assessment or reassessment: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in respect of an assessment made on or before ... section provides that on receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer may after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making such assessment or re-assessment. It has been provided in the proviso to the new section that

Sri Vardahan Vishwanath Vijaya, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(3)(6), Bangalore

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

ITA 379/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Vardhan Vishwanath Vijaya, The Ito, Vs. A-701, Tower – 2, Ward – 5[3][6], Adarsh Palm Retreat Apartments, Bengaluru. Devarabisanahalli, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aajpv 0010 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143(1)Section 90

fresh consideration. The AO will look into the schedule BFLA also and thereafter decide the issue afresh after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard. Page 4 of 4 6. In so far as the credit for taxes paid in US is concerned, one of the requirements is that ... consider the claim of the assessee for credit for taxes paid in USA also in the set aside proceedings. The AO will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the set aside proceedings. I, therefore, allow appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal

Ametek Instruments India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 432/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.432/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S. Ametek Instruments India The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Benguluru. Plot No.1, Epip Industrial Area, Divyashree Nr Enclave, 4Th Floor Block A, Whitefield Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aahca2869B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

deposit interest rate, instead of Libor Plus 450 basis points as adopted by the TPO, the DRP has erred in not providing an opportunity of being heard. 9.1 We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The principles of natural justice have 15 IT(TP)A No.432/Bang/2021 ... M/s.Ametek Instruments India Private Limited. been violated since no opportunity of being heard was provided when DRP directed to adopt SBI short term deposit rate instead of Libor plus 450 basis points adopted by the TPO. Further, the TPO has not followed the provisions of the Act in benchmarking

Ibm India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 584/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 29Section 36(1)(vii)Section 50B

claim. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to consider the evidences filed and decide the issues on merits de nove by granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, Grounds 3-6 raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee

M/S Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 35/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 92C

this Tribunal, we direct the TPO to apply CUP as the MAM and recompute the ALP after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ground Nos. 2 to 6 are allowed. In view of the above conclusion, the other grounds 7 do not require any adjudication. TP adjustment ... received is found to be at arm’s length, no separate addition needs to be made. The assessee may be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In view of this conclusion, we are of the considered view that grounds (22) to (33) does not warrant adjudication at this stage

Hathway Investment P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -12, Mumbai

ITA 1599/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1599/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Hathway Investments Private Limited. Rahejas, 4Th Floor, Corner Of Main Avenue & V.P.Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054. Pan: Aaach-1675-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-12, Mumbai, Room No.127, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 143(3)Section 263

Officer is 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

Shri Shridevi Charitable Trust, Tumkur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 227/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)(ITAT)
Section 11Section 154

basic concept of principle of natural justice. This expression implies that a person must be given opportunity to defend himself. An opportunity of being heard is the most important component of the principle of Natural Justice and implies a proper opportunity of hearing. In the given case, the assessee ... consider all the open issues presented before him afresh in accordance with law. The assessee may be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This issue is allowed in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. ITA Nos.227/Bang/2022 Page 8 of 8 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Shri Shridevi Charitable Trust, Tumkur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 226/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)(ITAT)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 80G(5)(vi)

consider the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while recomputing the total income of the assessee and give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to provide all the details that may be called for by the AO and co-operate

M/S. Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision India Private Limited ( Earlier Known As Abbott Medical Optics Private Limited), Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 84/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 84/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/. Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Abbott Medical Optics Pvt. Ltd.), The Income-Tax The Masterpiece, Officer, Level 5, Golf Course Road, Ward – 11(1), Sector – 54, Bangalore. Vs. Gurgaon – 122 002. Haryana. Pan: Aaeca8659C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajit Tolani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 05.11.2011 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-4, Bangalore For A.Y. 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-4, Bangalore [‘Ld. Cit(A)'] & The Learned Income-Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Bangalore (`Ld. Ao') To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Are Bad In Law, Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Tolani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 3Section 92C

available, that is functionally identical and similar in with that of the assessee, TNMM is to be applied. Under both the circumstances, due opportunity of being heard is to be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, grounds 4 – 4.9 stands allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Ground