“opportunity of being heard”

Nilesh Shirish Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

facts in passing the appellate order under section 250 of the Act in an ex-parte manner, without affording a proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in treating the Appellant's specific legal grounds

Discover Ekam Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh Prabhash Shankar

apply funds outside India. 3. In this regard, Ld. AR submitted that before rejecting the application, Ld. CIT(E) had not provided sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. AR also placed on record copy of affidavit declaring and confirming about the application of funds for promotion

Ceva Logistics India Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS)1(1)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised in each of the appeals is treated as allowed for statistical purposes while the all the other grounds are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: Learned TDS Officer.

Learned ADDL/JCIT (A) has erred in passing the order under Section 250 of the Act without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Appellant’s adjournment request dated October 21, 2023, was neither responded to nor rejected, and no further notice of hearing was issued thereafter. The order ... issue back to the file of the CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate the appeal afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee directed to co-operate in the appellate proceedings and forthwith file details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions before

Ceva Logistics India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS)-1(1)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised in each of the appeals is treated as allowed for statistical purposes while the all the other grounds are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: Learned TDS Officer.

Learned ADDL/JCIT (A) has erred in passing the order under Section 250 of the Act without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Appellant’s adjournment request dated October 21, 2023, was neither responded to nor rejected, and no further notice of hearing was issued thereafter. The order ... issue back to the file of the CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate the appeal afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee directed to co-operate in the appellate proceedings and forthwith file details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions before

Ceva Logistics India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS)-1(1)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised in each of the appeals is treated as allowed for statistical purposes while the all the other grounds are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: Learned TDS Officer.

Learned ADDL/JCIT (A) has erred in passing the order under Section 250 of the Act without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Appellant’s adjournment request dated October 21, 2023, was neither responded to nor rejected, and no further notice of hearing was issued thereafter. The order ... issue back to the file of the CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate the appeal afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee directed to co-operate in the appellate proceedings and forthwith file details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions before

Birla Carbon India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

revised. Therefore, he set aside the assessment order with a direction to modify the assessment by passing a speaking order, after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the final assessment order passed u/s. 144C ... section 144C, the A.O. has to pass the final assessment order in conformity with the directions of ld. DRP without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, a reading of sub-section 13 of section 144C makes it clear that at the stage of final assessment

Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

after affording the submissions made by the assessee and after affording the submissions made by the assessee and after affording the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. 10. In view of the above, the case is fit for further proceeding by 10. In view

The Bombay Society of the Franciscan Clarist Sisters of the Most Blessed Sacrament, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2501/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-2024) The Bombay Society Of V/S. Income Tax Officer, The Franciscan Clarist बिाम Ward 2(4), Mumbai Sisters Of The Most 6Th Floor, Mtnl Tel. Ex. Blessed Sacrament Building, Cumballa Hills, St. Anthony’S Home For The Pedder Road, Mumbai Aged, 51, Chapel Road, 400026 Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt0738Q Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Prashant Ghumare, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr (Virtually Present) स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit (A)-2 Delhi, [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

above ground, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and fair opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while passing the appellate order. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3. ADDITION/ADJUSTMENT WITHOUT JURISDICTION 3.1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred ... deleted. We therefore set aside the order of CTT(Appeals) and remand this issue for fresh consideration by the AG, after affonding opportunity of being heard to the assessce 13. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes 21. In light

Dew Drop Properties, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Dew Drop Properties Joint Commissioner Of 1302 Ocean View, Income Tax Pali Hill Union Park Khar West, Vs. Gurgaon, Mumbai – 400052 Haryana - 122016 (Pan: Aagfd2892R) (Assessee) (Respondent)

business profits, so as to allow the claim of salary to partners which has been disallowed. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to substantiate the claim by furnishing relevant documentary evidences. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Officer for the limited purpose of verification about possession taken by the assessee and treatment thereof. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submission, if so required. Accordingly, ground no.2 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In ground ... excess payment of rent u/s.40A(2)(b). Needless to say, assessee be given Deluxe Recycling India Pvt. Ltd. AY 2020-21 reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submission, if so required. Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Assistant Commissioner Of Deluxe Recycling India Income Tax-4(1)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Vs. Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deluxe Recycling India Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-4(1)(1), 13 17 Dady Sheth Agiary Lane, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 (Pan: Aaacd8909N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Officer for the limited purpose of verification about possession taken by the assessee and treatment thereof. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submission, if so required. Accordingly, ground no.2 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In ground ... excess payment of rent u/s.40A(2)(b). Needless to say, assessee be given Deluxe Recycling India Pvt. Ltd. AY 2020-21 reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submission, if so required. Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result

Mr. Rohit Vallabhdas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Rohit Vallabhdas Shah Income Tax Officer, B-303, Dwarka Apartment Ward 32(3)(2), Vs. Daulat Nagar, Borivali, Mumbai Mumbai – 400066 (Pan: Accps2392B) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit-32, Mumbai, Vide Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 17.06.2016 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order By Exercising Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Failed To Appreciate That The View Of The Assessing Officer Could Have Been Substituted In Exercise Of Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The View Taken By The Assessing Officer Was A Plausible View & Thus, The Commissioner Has Erred In Invoking The Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Could Not Have Set Aside The Assessment Order.

thus set aside the assessment so completed by the ld. Assessing Officer and directed him to pass a fresh order after allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after taking into account the ratio of decision in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. by the Hon'ble Supreme ... copy of challans but the appellant did not provide any details or produce the parties and further, 133(6) notice returned unserved. Adequate opportunities of being heard were provided during assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings, however, there was no response. Further reliance is placed upon the decision

Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vipendra Ravindra Mandal, Ito Ward 22(3)(6), 405, Orchid Wing-F Lodha Crown, Piramal Chamber, Taloja Bypass Road, Kohni B.O. Vs. Mumbai-400012. Khoni, Thane-421204. Pan No. Alepm 8472 H Appellant Respondent

consideration. Further, in accordance with section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act, in accordance with section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act, an opportunity of being heard an opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee, was provided to the assessee, vide Showcause notice u/s 148A

Sodexo India Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. 13(2)(2), Mumbai

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

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

details before the AO and the AO is directed to verify the same and disallow the correct amount after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Insofar as, grievance raised vide Ground No. 2 is concerned

Shri Jigar Kishor Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Jigar Kishor Mehta, The Ito-41(4)(2), 50/5, Dhanji Street, 1St Agairy Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Lane, Masjid Bunder, Vs. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 003. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afopm 9328 Q Appellant Respondent

humbly pray before Your Honour to condone the delay in filing Form 36 and grant me Form 36 and grant me an opportunity of being heard according to heard according to the the the principles principles principles of natural of natural of natural justice justice justice

Shree Sadguru Seneshwara Sewa Samithi, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai

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

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

directed to serve notice on the given e-mail address in Form 35 and decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on September

Rasiklal Lavchand Vora, Thane vs. ACIT - Central Circle 1, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

taking into account our aforesaid observations Jawahar Pravinchand Sarkar, AY 2011-12 and findings. Needless to say, that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to substantiate his claim. We direct the assessee, to be diligent in attending the hearings fixed for the appeal and assist in its expeditious

Rasiklal Vora, Thane vs. ACIT - Central Circle -1, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

taking into account our aforesaid observations Jawahar Pravinchand Sarkar, AY 2011-12 and findings. Needless to say, that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to substantiate his claim. We direct the assessee, to be diligent in attending the hearings fixed for the appeal and assist in its expeditious

Rasiklal Vora, Thane vs. ACIT, Central 1, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

taking into account our aforesaid observations Jawahar Pravinchand Sarkar, AY 2011-12 and findings. Needless to say, that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to substantiate his claim. We direct the assessee, to be diligent in attending the hearings fixed for the appeal and assist in its expeditious

Shree Ghatkopar Sarvajanik Jivdaya Khatu, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Ghatkopar Sarvajanik Income Tax Officer, Exem Jivdaya Khatu Ward-2(3), Jivdaya Lane Agra Road, Mumbai Vs. Ghatkopar, Mumbai – 400086 (Pan: Aabts9826R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

ensure that the purpose for accumulation is explained by the assessee, corroborating by relevant documentary evidences. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to substantiate its claim by 8 Shree Ghatkopar Sarvajanik Jivdaya Khatu AY 2017-18 furnishing the required documents and details. Accordingly, grounds raised