“opportunity of being heard”

Bhikha Behram Well Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: N.A.

clause (iii) of the provision of section 12(1)(ac) of the Act. Suffice to say, the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 4. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms. Order pronounced

Binoy Rajen Shah, Mumbai vs. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17

medical documents. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to file appropriate application along with duly sworn affidavit and relevant medical documents in order

Ramavtar Investment & Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: The Ld. Commissioner, However, With A Delay Of Approximately 725 Days. The Assessee, Before The Ld. Commissioner By Filing Form No.35 Mentioned The Following Reason For Occurring Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal Before The Ld. Commissioner, Which Reads As Under:

Assessee undertakes to file. Suffice to 4 M/s. Ramavtar Investment Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. say, the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 10. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Further

Ltimindtree Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (2)(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriltimindtree Limited Vs. Acit, Circle (2)(2)(1) (Formerly Larse & Toubro Mumbai/Cit(A)-Nfac- Infotech Limited) Delhi L & T Technology Center, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor , Gate No. 5, Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Road, Powai, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacl1681P Appellant .. Respondent

direct him consider and decide the TP issue on merits. Needless to add the assessee shall be given due opportunity of being heard. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in Open Court on 30.09.2025 (PAWAN SINGH) (RENU JAUHRI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: Mumbai

Deepak Dhanraj Rathod, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 44, Mumbai in physical form. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in terms of Notification No.76 of 2020, dated 25/09/2020, issued by Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT), New Delhi. Vide Order, dated 23/05/2025, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee which has been impugned by way of present appeal preferred by the Assessee.

passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside with the directions to adjudicate the appeal afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is also directed to co- operate in the appellate proceedings and forthwith file details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions

Safe and Sure Marine Services Private Limited, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Safe & Sure Marine Income Tax Officer, Services Private Limited, Ward 8(1)(2), 5, Sagar Building, Room No.614, 6Th Floor, 327 Narsi Natha Street, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Masjid Bunder, M.K. Road, Mumbai Churchgate, Maharashtra – 400 009 Mumbai Pan: Aahcs8193E Maharashtra – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short “Ld. Commissioner”) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. In This Case, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Of Sending Notices For The Dates Of The Previous Hearings As Well As For Today, Thus, This Court Is Constrained To Decide This Appeal As Ex-Parte.

remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh and/or on merit, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, however, subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days of the receipt

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

Assessing Officer for the purpose of verification and its Assessment Year 2017-18 meritorious adjudication. Needless to say, that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to make its submissions and justify the claim Accordingly, ground No.2 is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Ground No.3 is in respect

M/S. Suravi Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

quashing the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) in violating the principle of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity of being heard through video conferencing. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed

B S Rai Education Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Years: 2025-26 & Assessment Years: 2025-26 M/S. Bs Rai Education Trust, Cit (Exemptions), 201, Neera Govind, Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Govind Nagar, Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te S.N. Road, Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 080 Pedder Road, Pan: Aabtb6348K Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – 400 026 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ganesh Kevat, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Even Dated 21.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2025-26. 2. Both The Appeals Are Interconnected & Having Involved Almost Identical Issues & Therefore For The Sake Of Brevity The Same Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This M/S. Bs Rai Education Trust Composite Order By Taking Into Consideration The Facts & Circumstances & Issue Involved In Ita No.3497/M/2025 As A Lead Case & Result Of The Same Would Be Applicable Mutatis Mutandis To Both The Appeals Under Consideration.

provision of M/s. BS Rai Education Trust section 12(1)(ac) of the Act. Suffice to say, the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms. 6. In view

Mrs. Neha Urmish Udani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes in the same terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

impugned order and consequently remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is, accordingly, remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh. 9. The Assessee

Mrs. Neha Urmish Udani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes in the same terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

impugned order and consequently remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is, accordingly, remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh. 9. The Assessee

B S Rai Education Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Years: 2025-26 & Assessment Years: 2025-26 M/S. Bs Rai Education Trust, Cit (Exemptions), 201, Neera Govind, Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Govind Nagar, Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te S.N. Road, Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 080 Pedder Road, Pan: Aabtb6348K Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – 400 026 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ganesh Kevat, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Even Dated 21.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2025-26. 2. Both The Appeals Are Interconnected & Having Involved Almost Identical Issues & Therefore For The Sake Of Brevity The Same Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This M/S. Bs Rai Education Trust Composite Order By Taking Into Consideration The Facts & Circumstances & Issue Involved In Ita No.3497/M/2025 As A Lead Case & Result Of The Same Would Be Applicable Mutatis Mutandis To Both The Appeals Under Consideration.

provision of M/s. BS Rai Education Trust section 12(1)(ac) of the Act. Suffice to say, the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms. 6. In view

Shree Wagheshwari Seva Samiti Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhrishree Wagheshwari Seva Vs. Cit(Exemption) Samiti Charitable Trust Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Room No. 2, Natubhai Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Gayantra Chawal, Sai Building, Peddar Road, Dr Nagar, M. G. Cross Road, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400067. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aarts5487J Appellant .. Respondent

Without prejudice to the generality of the above ground, the impugned order is bad in law and illegal as no sufficient and fair opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant. 2.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case ... subject to afresh and allow the same fulfilment of other requirements. Needless to add, the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(E). P a g e | 9 A.Y.N.A 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in Open

Lupin Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

directed to examine the issues mentioned in the impugned order and make addition/disallowance after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. The Ld.AR at the outset referred to the additional ground of appeal taken by the assessee ... 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 of the case justify

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO-7(1) (Erstwhile ITO-23(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

Assessing Officer for the purpose of verification and its Assessment Year 2017-18 meritorious adjudication. Needless to say, that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to make its submissions and justify the claim Accordingly, ground No.2 is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Ground No.3 is in respect

Prabhunath Majhi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

file all relevant evidences in support of its contentions. Ld.AO is directed to verify the documents as per law and to provide proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result appeal filed

Novelty Power & Infratec Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry&

impugned order and consequently remanding the case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh. 6. The Assessee is also

Praful Arjun Rane, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 148A. Pursuant to section 148A, it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer 7 Praful Arjun Rane AY 2015-16 to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving a notice of show cause as to why the notice u/s. 148 should not be issued. Further, Assessing ... specified authority, with respect to information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. ii. He shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee with the prior approval of the specified authority. iii. He shall consider the reply of the assessee furnished, if any in response