← 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

Sonia Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2549/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153D

docketed in the order sheet and a copy of the draft order and covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before ... sheet, a copy of the draft assessment order, covering letter filed in the relevant miscellaneous records folder. Even, it is noted that due opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee by the supervisory officer giving approval to the proposed block assessment, at least one month before

Best City Projects India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 4(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5294/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2008-09] M/S Best City Projects India Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.385A, C.R. Building, Plot No.H-8, 1St Floor, Best Vs New Delhi110002 Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 Pan-Aaccb7635D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 254Section 68

aside and matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. We order accordingly and direct the Assessing Officer to allow adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to produce all the evidences before the Assessing Officer in support of its contention that ... submission of the Appellant. While deciding the appeal of the Assessee, the Hon'ble ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to allow adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessing Officer has provided adequate opportunity to the Assessee to prove that receipt of Rs.90,00,000/- was an advance

Anjali Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -1(2), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3605/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Ms. Anjali Gupta, Ito, Ward-1(2), A-84, Summit, Dlf City-5, Gurgaon, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Vs Haryana Pan-Aaipg5132F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order has been passed by the Assessing Officer without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 3. Coming to the factual matrix of the case, the assessee is contesting the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming an addition made

Shri Bhama Punja Bharai, Junagadh vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 590/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2021-22) Bhama Punja Bharai Vs. Acit Circle-2, Rajkot Near Kuvav Talav, Grofed Road, Azad Aaykar Bhawan, Race Chowk S.O. Junagadh- 362710 Course Road, Rajkot-360001 Pan : Dvxpb 2168 H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Adjournment Application सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per,Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Faceless Appeal, Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] 24.01.2025 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2.When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, I Note That The Assessee, Submitted By Way Of Affidavit That The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Belatedly. I Have Gone Through The Affidavit Filed In This Regard Citing Reasons For Condonation Of Delay & I Note That Assessee Urged For A Benign View & Sought Condonation Of Delay Of 182 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. A Perusal Of The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Adjournment Application
Section 144

learned CIT(A) is an ex-party order, without adjudicating on merit, therefore, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I also note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment ... merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 4. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I also note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee

Kamlesh Bharatkumar Ranpara, Rajkot vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 583/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiareata /Ita No. 583/Rjt/2025 (Feratzorat/A Sessment Year: (2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 6. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the Id. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee ... note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter

Janta Co Operative Credit Limited, Chapora vs. Income Tax Officer, Burhanpur

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 244/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessment order passed by the learned AO is void and bad in law. 5. The learned CIT (A) failed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard and present his case to the appellant. 6. The learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the cash deposited in the bank account ... only bad in law but is a gross violation of principles of natural justice also. Others: The learned AO had without providing any opportunity of being heard or to present its case, disallowed the interest on overdraft on ad-hoc basis, which is not only incorrect but is also

Matushri Lilbai Maganlal Gala Charitable Trust, Thane vs. DCIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1134/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandramatushri Lilbai Maganlal Gala Cit(Exemption), Pune Charitable Trust Gala No.315, Building No.R3, Vs. Samarth Chs, Kharton Road, Opp. Dadoji Konddev Stadium, Thane (West) – 400601 Pan: Aadtm4064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh S Athavale (Virtually) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-10-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S Athavale (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

application shall be liable to be rejected and the registration/approval shall also be liable to be cancelled. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. However, the assessee neither submitted the above mentioned compliance nor availed the opportunity of being heard. The assessee was requested ... submit compliance by 17/01/2024. The assessee was also given opportunity of being heard vide the said notice. The notice was duly served on the assessee through e-portal and email. However, the assessee neither furnished its compliance to the show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard

Dhanlaxmi Mahila Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Pune vs. PCIT-1, Pune

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

ITA 1024/PUN/2025[1024]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Payal Rathi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and is proposed to be revised. 6. In this connection, you are given opportunity of being heard by the undersigned. You may therefore attend this office in person or through authorized representative on 01/10/2024 at 12.30 P.M. on the above mentioned address ... aside the order passed by the AO with a direction to verify the facts properly and re-examine the issue after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The relevant order passed by the Ld. PCIT reads as under:- “7 I have carefully considered the entire written submission

Susanta Mallick, Kalikapur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1764/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250

documentary evidences and submission in support of his case and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings. 11) The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard and notice of hearing to be issued as per provisions of section 282 of the Act 61 and also in email id stated

Gurusamy Sanjeevikumar, Ariyalur vs. ITO Ward 3, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 2318/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2318/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23 Gurusamy Sanjeevikumar, Income Taxofficer, No.F-12/10, Rcl Township, Vs. Ward-3, Sendhurai Road, Virudhunagar. Govindapuram Works, Ariyalur, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu-621 713. [Pan:Ckrps0908N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Ms.D.Geetha, C.A प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Mr.C.P.Solomon, Jcit

For Appellant: Ms.D.Geetha, C.AFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Solomon, JCIT

assessee for adjudication and decide the disputes raised thereon in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, and additional ground, if any, in support of its contentions. With these observations

Indian Educational Trust, Dharmapuri vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2313/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2313/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2023-24 Indian Educational Trust, Assistant Commissioner Of No.1, Gopinathampatti Road, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Parayapatty, Pudur, Coimbatore Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu – 636 903. [Pan:Aaati5061M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A(Virtual) प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Mr.C.P.Solomon, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi VenkatramanFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Solomon, JCIT

assessee for adjudication on the grounds raised thereon in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, and additional grounds, if any, in support of its contentions. With these observations

Vishal Krishna, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2258/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2258/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vishal Krishna, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. T-27, New No. T-3, Income Tax, 12Th Street, Anna Nagar S.O., Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Aagpv0851L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Vaitheeswaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 105 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri K. Vaitheeswaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

interest of natural justice, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee subject to the condition of payment of ₹.10,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras

Pristine Academy, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2256/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2256/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20 Prestine Academy, Assistant Commissioner Of No.37/2, Podanur Main Road, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Podanur, Coimbatore, Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu-641023. [Pan:Aadtp2753J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.Arjunraj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Mr.C.P.Solomon, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Solomon, JCIT

file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal by not taking unwarranted adjournments except

N. Vijay Kumar, ACIT, Chennai vs. Rajah Muthiah Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue & CO of assessee are

ITA 2097/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 9

made under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such ... should not be made under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before

M/S. Raktikanta Panda Niranjan Panda, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1781/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1781/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Raktikanta Panda Niranjan Panda, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. B, 301, Block B, Tvs Emerald Non Corporate Ward 22(4), Green Hills, No. 345/2B, Tambaram. Nedungundram, Ngo Nagar, Alapakkam, Perungalathur, Chennai 600 063. [Pan:Adjpn9359H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 293 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT
Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. argued that the ld. CIT(A) erred in law in enhancing the cash deposit suo motu without providing proper opportunity of being heard under section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. He argued vehemently that the enhancement ... drew our attention to the impugned order and submits that nowhere in the impugned order showing that the ld. CIT(A) has given opportunity of being heard regarding enhancement of income of the assessee. He argued vehemently that the addition made by the ld. CIT(A) to an extent

J K Patel & Co, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5071/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. D/R) (virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

having considered the detailed submissions made by the Appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not affording to the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard before dismissing the appeal in spite of the fact that detailed submissions along with several supporting documents, bank statements, confirmations, copies of binding ... documentary evidence submitted by the assessee vide letter dated 10/01/2025 uploaded with the acknowledgement no. 810886281090125, after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 24th October

Sameer Desai Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, I.T.A. No. 4509/Mum/2025 is allowed and I

ITA 4509/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi (virtually appeared) a/w Vinita Nara A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

approval u/s 80G of the Act afresh, as per the relevant provisions of the law and after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, I.T.A. No. 4509/Mum/2025 is allowed and I.T.A. No. 4508/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Sameer Desai Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, I.T.A. No. 4509/Mum/2025 is allowed and I

ITA 4508/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi (virtually appeared) a/w Vinita Nara A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

approval u/s 80G of the Act afresh, as per the relevant provisions of the law and after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, I.T.A. No. 4509/Mum/2025 is allowed and I.T.A. No. 4508/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Fairbridge Capital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai - 6, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3626/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah a/w Mr. Hardik Nirmal andFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT, D/R [virtually
Section 143(3)Section 263

quashed/set aside for fresh adjudication after considering the facts as discussed above. 4. In this connection, you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard and your case is fixed for hearing/making submission online on or before the date mentioned above. In case of non-compliance, it will be presumed

Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. Commissioner, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4929/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Deepak Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

contention and if it is found in order, then issues may be decided in accordance with law, afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings and provide all the necessary documents, evidences