← 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

Sunkesulapati Sumanth, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3)(2) and Assistant Director of CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 6/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Sunkesulapati Sumanth, Vs. Ito, 2B 502 Arya Hamsa Apartment, Ward – 5(3)(2) & Adit, Cpc, Bangalore South, Bannerghatta S.O, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 083. Pan : Bypps 8390 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balasubramanyam K V, Ar Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Balasubramanyam K V, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making the above additions and disallowance without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, 2. the learned Assessing Officer

M/S. Charoen Pokphand Seeds (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 311/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, Hal Iii Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan: Aaccc3259N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order U/S. 263 Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bengaluru – 2, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant Objects To The Revision Order Passed U/S. 263 On The Following Grounds In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The As It Is Opposed To Law & Circumstances Of The Case: - Originally The Appellant Has Taken Only One Ground Relating To Deduction U/S.35(2Ab). The Following Grounds Were Not Taken By Oversight. Hence The Appellant Is Filing Revised Grounds Of Appeal As Mentioned Below.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

assessee under section 10(1) of the Act. This in no manner will prejudice the assessee. We direct the Ld.AO to grant proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to file all requisite details in support of the claim. Accordingly the grounds raised

Canara Housing Development Company, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 976/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ramakrishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

with the direction to examine the claim of the assessee u/s 28 / 37 of the Act. The assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1111/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate
Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

merits, we remand this appeal back to Ld.CIT(A) to pass a detailed order on the merits of the case by granting proper opportunity of being heard to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed

Lemnisk Private Limited (Formerly Known As 'Vizury Interactive Solutions Private Limited'), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2129/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan

Appellant. 2. Disallowance of Provisions- Rs. 29,39,905 a. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not providing the Appellant with an opportunity of being heard on the applicability of withholding taxes on such provisions made which is against the principles of natural justice. b. The learned ... against the disallowance of depreciation made by the learned AO. b. The learned C1T (A) has erred in not giving the Appellant an opportunity of being heard while making the disallowance. c. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that depreciation is not covered under section

M/S Nava Karnataka Steels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1947/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri T Srinivasa Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D George, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92D

virtue of the aforesaid amendments, the AO is required to adjudicate the issue of claim of expenditures in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We therefore set aside the orders of the AO and the DRP and restore the matter to the AO with ... case on IT(TP)A No.1947 /Bang/2017 Page 14 of 15 merits as per the provisions of law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in this regard. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in court on 29th

Lemnisk Private Limited (Formerly Known As 'Vizury Interactive Solutions Pvt Ltd'), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 1851/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan

Appellant. 2. Disallowance of Provisions- Rs. 29,39,905 a. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not providing the Appellant with an opportunity of being heard on the applicability of withholding taxes on such provisions made which is against the principles of natural justice. b. The learned ... against the disallowance of depreciation made by the learned AO. b. The learned C1T (A) has erred in not giving the Appellant an opportunity of being heard while making the disallowance. c. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that depreciation is not covered under section

M/S on Mobile Global Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 535/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 144C

assessee. The Ld.TPO is directed to consider the transfer pricing issues de no move in accordance with law and by giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. Page 5 of 9 IT(TP)A Nos. 523 & 535/Bang/2016 Accordingly ground number 3-7 raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Onmobile Global Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 523/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 144C

assessee. The Ld.TPO is directed to consider the transfer pricing issues de no move in accordance with law and by giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. Page 5 of 9 IT(TP)A Nos. 523 & 535/Bang/2016 Accordingly ground number 3-7 raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical

Novell Software Development (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 319/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

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

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Respondent erred in not providing the Appellant an opportunity of being heard prior to making a reference to the Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing) — 2(1), Bangalore ['the TPO' for short], which is violative ... remand the issue to the TPO for deciding the correctness of choosing this company as a comparable company. The TPO/AO shall afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.” B.7 Respectfully following the above view, we remand the issue to the TPO for deciding the correctness of choosing this company

ITO Ward - 5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 280/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

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

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Respondent erred in not providing the Appellant an opportunity of being heard prior to making a reference to the Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing) — 2(1), Bangalore ['the TPO' for short], which is violative ... remand the issue to the TPO for deciding the correctness of choosing this company as a comparable company. The TPO/AO shall afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.” B.7 Respectfully following the above view, we remand the issue to the TPO for deciding the correctness of choosing this company

Simplex Mills Conpany Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Cemtra)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 175/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal & Filed Simplex Mills Company Ltd, Mumbai. The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Accepted. Contra, Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly The Delay Is Condoned & Admit The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Satish Modi.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit K. Srivastava.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

directed to pass a fresh assessment order after making necessary enquiry in the light of above discussion and after affording the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. The AO is further directed to properly investigate and verify the contention made in show cause notice, among other things. 6. Aggrieved

Simplex Papers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Cemtra)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 174/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesimplex Papers Ltd Vs. Pr. Cit (Central) – 2 2Nd Floor, Simplex Mills 1920, Air India Bldg Compound, 30, Nariman Point, Keshavrao Khadye Mumbai – 400 021. Marg, Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai – 400 011. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs6910M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Satish Modi.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajit K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)(Central-2)Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 12 Days In Simplex Papers Ltd, Mumbai. Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Accepted. Contra, Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly The Delay Is Condoned & Admit The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri. Satish Modi.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit K. Srivastava.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

pass a fresh assessment order after making necessary inquiry in the light of above discussion and after affording the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard The AO is further directed to properly investigate and verify the contention made in show cause notice, among other things The Assessing officer is also

M/S. Jenmata Traders P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Dy CIT-CC-7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1045/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Jenmata Traders P. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-7(2), 59, Vikas Nagar, Mumbai Kalwad Road, Jhotwara, Jaiput, Vs. Rajasthan-302 021

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

consider the above specified factual aspect. It is needless to mention that 3 M/s. Jenmata Traders P. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT adequate opportunity of being heard shall be provided to the assessee. The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. In the result

Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 7116/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. Income Tax, 10(1)(1), Chakala, Andheri (E), R.No.209, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0964P

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92(2)Section 92BSection 92C

virtue of the aforesaid amendments, the AO is required to adjudicate the issue of claim of expenditures in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We therefore set aside the orders of the AO and the DRP M/s Hindustan Dorr Oliver Limited

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1579/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegodrej Consumer Vs. Dcit, Cc-14(1)(1) Products Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3365J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr & Mr.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To Directions Of The Drp.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR
Section 1Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 801CSection 80ISection 921

restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with similar directions. The Assessing Officer must decide the issue after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. We restore the disputed issues to the file of the assessing officer with

Saifee Burhani Uplifetment Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1305/MUM/2021[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

satisfied, pass an order in writing rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (c) where the application is made under sub-clause (vi) of the said clause, pass an order in writing provisionally registering the trust or institution for a period

M/S. Sree Rajendra Textiles, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 697/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sree Rajendra Textiles, Dcit, Vs. 385, 5Th Floor, Rmv 2Nd Stage, Circle – 5(2)(1), 2Nd Block, 80 Feet Road, Bengaluru. Sanjaynagar, Bengaluru – 560 094. Pan : Aaefs 9813 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

before the Tribunal. 6. It is the plea of the assessee in ground Nos.1 and 2 that the CIT(A) did not afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In this regard, it is seen from the order of the CIT(A) that there has been only an electronic ... should be set aside and the matter remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision afresh after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal before

Shri Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 26/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54B

appeal and hence they are admitted as additional evidence. The issue is remanded to the AO for consideration afresh after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard. Page 9 of 9 14. In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court

M/S. Steer Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2071/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, No.290, 4Th Main, 4Th Phase, Circle – 6(1)(2), Peenya Industrial Area, Nagawara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aabcs 8840 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Susan D. George, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144CSection 92(1)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

transaction or specified domestic transaction entered into by an assessee over whom the Assessing Officer exercises jurisdiction. The TPO, after due enquiry and opportunity of being heard, shall by order in writing determine the ALP in relation to the international transaction in accordance with provisions of section 92CA ... case. 38. We direct the TPO to determine the ALP in accordance with the directions contained in this order after affording the Assessee opportunity of being heard. 39. The next issue that needs to be adjudicated in this appeal is with regard to correctness of determination of ALP in respect