“opportunity of being heard”

Natural JusticeAudi Alteram PartemAudi Alteram Partem22,508 judgments

The decision most relied on for opportunity of being heard is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on opportunity of being heard

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT

2,267

citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court

1,656

citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India

54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court

702

citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Tin Box Company v. CIT

249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court

624

citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

CIT v. Vikas Polymers

341 ITR 537 · 2012 · High Court

318

citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer did not record an enquiry and its satisfactory answer in the assessment order, provided such an enquiry was conducted. For revision under Section 263, the Commissioner must also provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and examine their explanation.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported

225

citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi

334 ITR 262 · 2011 · Supreme Court

211

citing judgments

If an assessee was denied an adequate opportunity of being heard, including the right to cross-examine a witness, the assessment should be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity, even if the assessee failed to appear at an appellate stage. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, should ensure such matters are re-adjudicated.

Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT

119 ITR 996 · 1979 · Supreme Court

205

citing judgments

An assessment cannot be reopened under Section 147/148 based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer on material already considered during the original assessment, clarifying the scope of 'escaped assessment'.

Judgments citing opportunity of being heard

M/S. S.K. Ventures, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -3, Thane

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

ITA 1167/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Pr. Commissioner Of M/S S.K. Ventures Income Tax-3, 1, Ground Floor, Block No.1- 6Th Floor, A-Wing, Ashar It 25/145 Madhuban Hotel Park, Wagle, Industrial Vs. Road, Ulhasnagar, Kalyal, Estate, Thane West, Mumbai-421003 Mumbai-400 064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadas2607K

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir S. Chouhan, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

impugned order u/s. 263 in utter haste and hurry during the period of pandemic of COVID-19; by neither giving any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant nor considering the submissions made by the Appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.” 2. The facts of the case

Kavita Gupta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26(2), Mumbai

ITA 5828/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Dalal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

appreciate that: a. the A.O. passed the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without affording sufficient, proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. b. the Appellant‟s claim of deduction under section 57 of the Act of Rs. 9.39 lakhs being interest paid

Aarti Industrial Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose and appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3695/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bledcit – 15(1)(1) V. M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., Room No. 470, 4Th Floor 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 145/Mum/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita.No. 3583/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15)] M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., V. Dcit – 15(1)(1) 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Room No. 470, 4Th Floor Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Ms. Shailaja Rai & Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80

deciding the same. Accordingly, we send these grounds to the AO with the direction to decide these grounds after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 13. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tribunal ... deciding the same. Accordingly, we send these grounds to the AO with the direction to decide these grounds after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 17. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tribunal

M/S Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3363/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3363/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Tyco Fire & The Assistant Security India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of D-601, Rmz Contennial, Income Tax, Kundalahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct0087C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Dated October 26, 2018 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 20, 2018 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Drp") U/S 144C (5) Of The Act (`The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

proper that in the present case also, this issue should go back to the file of TPO for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and while deciding the issue afresh, all the available Tribunal orders on this issue should be considered ... 3363/Bang/2018 of this comparable and apply the filter is to consider it in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands partly allowed. 38. Ground No.20-21: are in respect of computing incorrect operating margins

Hp India Sales Private Limited (Formerly Known As Hewlett - Packard India Sales Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 779/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

terms of adjustment of TDS credit and negative movement in the deferred revenue. The AO is directed accordingly and that a reasonable opportunity of being heard to be given to the assessee before the final decision. This ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. IT(TP)A No.779/Bang/2016

Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 699/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA

Section 144C

section (1) of this provision provides that : `The Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from ... Dispute arose in Sahara Hospitality Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 38 (Bom) as to whether or not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer of case by the Chief Commissioner, in the backdrop of the use of the word `may in the provision

M/S Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 649/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154

public domain, the AO/TPO is directed o obtain the same directly from the comparable companies and decide the issue afresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the AO/TPO.” 12. The TPO while computing the capacity utilization of the assessee has applied ... adjustment for capacity under utilization needs to looked at afresh and hence, we remit the issue back to TPO/AO. Needless to say that opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee. The appeal on this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Ground No.3 regarding adjustment of extraordinary

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 548/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA

Section 144C

Mr. Pratapchand P. Purohit, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2) (5), Mumbai

ITA 1703/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Pratapchand P. Income Tax Officer- Purohit, 19(2)(5), Shop No.1, 25, Khambata Matru Mandir, Vs. Lane, Tardeo Road, Khetwadi Back Road, Mumbai – 400007 Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aabpp3598B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. Ā.R. Date Of Hearing : 30 . 03 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 04 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh: The Appellant, Mr. Pradeepchand P. Purohit (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessee’) By Filing The Present Appeal, Sought To Set Aside The Impugned Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Qua The Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Grounds Inter Alia That :-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Sr. Ā.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes directing the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh on merit by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th April 2022. (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated

Lic Golden Jubilee Foundation, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption) 1 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1433/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (DR)

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

dismissal of appeal by CIT(A): “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in dismissing the appeal summarily without giving opportunity of being heard in the matter. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not considering application for condonation of Delay, attached along with Form ... there was no delay in filing the appeal, however, he submitted that the penalty order was passed by CIT(A) summarily without giving opportunity of being heard and/or confronting the Appellant regarding delay in filing the appeal. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record including

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7026/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 143(3)

entire issues on merits denovo after admitting the appeals filed by the assessee. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to furnish all evidences in support of its contentions. The assessee is directed to co-operate with

M/S Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92

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 ... public domain, the AOITPO is directed to obtain the same directly from the comparable companies and decide theissue afresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the AO/TPO.” 31. Following the aforesaid order, we remand the issue to the TPO/AO for consideration

M/S. R N Shetty Trust, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 428/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, Advocate

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

joint submission, we direct the Ld.AO to verify the details / evidences filed by assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Ground nos. 6 & 7 : At the outset

M/S. R N Shetty Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 427/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, Advocate

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Mr. Khadir Ahmed, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(3)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 393/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Mr. Khadir Ahmed, # 836, Pipeline Road, The Income-Tax Opp: Bbmp Ward Office, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6 [3][3], Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Afxpa8334H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepesh Waghale, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 28.02.2020 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Sustaining A Sum Of Rs. 52,91,575/-Reckoned At 25% Of The Cash Deposits Made In The Bank Account Of Rs.2,11,66,300/- As Estimated Income Of The Appellant As Against The Addition Of Rs.64,05,000/- Made By The Learned A.O. As Unexplained Cash Deposits Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale, CA

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234Section 54Section 54F

verify all the documents / evidences filed by the assessee. Accordingly the Ld.AO shall decide the issue in accordance with law by granting proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th

M/S. Capco Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2436/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

examined by the TPO/AO afresh in the light of the decision of the tribunal referred to above, after affording the Assessee opportunity of being heard. 19. As already stated, no other grounds were pressed for adjudication. The TPO/AO are accordingly directed to compute the ALP for the international transaction ... accordance with the directions contained in this order after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard. IT(TP)A No.2436/Bang/2019 M/s. Capco Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Page 18 of 18 20. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Apotex Pharmachem India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1227/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 10B

Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal. 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. Accordingly, ground nos. 2 & 3 raised by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. Ground Nos. 4 to 8 relating

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3089/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 92C

directed to compute the ALP of the international transaction in accordance with the directions given above in this order, after affording Assessee opportunity of being heard.” There is nothing placed on record by the revenue to take a different view. Respectfully following the above view, we direct the Ld.AO/TPO

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3088/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 92C

Smt M Ratnamma, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2659/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

mistake in the issue of notice or defective service of notice does not affect the jurisdiction of the assessing offIcer, if otherwise reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given. • Issue of notice as prescribed in the Rules constitutes a part of reasonable opportunity of being heard. • If prejudice