“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

Mohammed Obaidul Haque, Pandua vs. ITO, Ward 32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 595/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.595/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Mohammed Obaidul Haque, Vs Ito, Ward-32(1), Kolkata Village Mahadebpur, Post : Pandua, West Bengal-712149 Pan No. : Aamph 7367 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri C.Roy, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 21.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri C.Roy, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shankar Naskar, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 696 Days. In This Regard, The Asessee Has Filed Affidavit Stating The Sufficient Reasons For Condoantion Of Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld.Sr.Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection. Accordingly, Delay Of 696 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. During The Course Of Hearing, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Providing Any Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. It Was The Prayer That The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) To Decide The Issue

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR

submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue ... restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee, I impose

Piyush Kumar Sarda, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.542/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Piyush Kumar Sarda Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 44(2) 3/1B, Sir Hari Ram Goenka Street, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Pan No. : Atbps 4944 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 3

objections. The main objection raised was that under the provision of Section 148A(b) of the Act, the assessee should be provided an opportunity of being heard by serving upon the assessee a notice to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice being not less ... prima facie, satisfied that there was merit in Petitioner's submissions. Section 148-A(B) of the Act reads as under:- "provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as 5 may be specified in the notice

Smt. Dulali Roy, Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Burdwan

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

ITA 1076/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 1076//Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Smt. Dulali Roy Vs Ito Ward 2(4), Burdwan C/O Prakash Roy, Green Wood, Aaykar Bhavan, Court Compound, Sonata, Citi Centre-2, Flat No. 9E, Burdwan, West Bengal-713101 9Th Floor, Action Area-Iid, Kolkata-700161, West Bengal Pan No. : Acypr 0763 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR

interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the ld. AO in the readjudication proceedings. 7. In the result, appeal

Electromechanical Trading Pvt. Ltd., Fortuna Tower vs. ITO 5(3), Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 1066/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1066/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Electromechanical Trading Pvt. Ltd. …………………....Appellant 23A, Ns Road, 11Th Floor, Room No.53, Kol-1. [Pan: Adcpa8526G] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3), Kolkata……..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vijay Kr. Singhal, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2024 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 358 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.50,050/- Which Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68

restore the matter to the file of the ld. CT(A) with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to adjudicate the appeal afresh after considering the documents and submissions that may be filed in support of its case. The assessee is also

Manas Kumar Das, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward 27(3), Haldia

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

ITA 1011/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 1011/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Manas Kumar Das Vs Ito Ward 27(3), Haldia Dakshin Mechogram, P.O.-Uttar Aaykar Bhavan, Basudebpur, Mechogram, Purba Medinipur, P.O.Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Purba West Bengal-721139 Medinipur, West Bengal-721602 Pan No. : Agepd 3247 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR

interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the AO in the readjudication proceedings positively. 3 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Ganesh Mahato, Durgapur, South Parganas vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax Circle 26(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, with cost of Rs

ITA 182/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.182/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganesh Mahato…...……………………..…………………....Appellant Vill. Durgapur, Po- Jaynagar, Majilpur, South 24 Parganas-743337. [Pan: Bgppm6996K] Vs. Acit, Circle-26(1), Kolkata ……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.12.2023 Passed By The Nfac [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,76,470/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny. Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued But She Assessee Remained Non-Compliant. The Assessing Officer Observed That Total Deposits In The Assessee'S Bank Accounts With Bank During The Period April 2016 To March 2017 Amounted To Rs.2,00,80,900, Whereas The Assessee Had Shown Only Rs.90,20,200 As Sales. The Excess Deposit Of Rs.1,10,60,700 Was Treated As Unexplained Money Under Section 69A & Added To The Income Of The Assessee.

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

limine. Subject to the above, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with all notices issued and assist in disposal of the appeal without seeking

Anup Nayak, Asansol vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.120/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anup Nayak………...……………………..…………………....Appellant 161, P N Malia Road, Raniganj, West Bengal – 713325. [Pan: Adfpn8917M] Vs. Cit(A), Delhi……………..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.07.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals). Kolkata [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, Confirming The Demand Raised Under Section 201(1) Read With Section 201(1A) Of The Act 2. Brief Facts Of The Case The Assessee Is Engaged In The Contractual Business Of Mining Work & Trading. During The Relevant Financial Year 2011-12, The Assessee Failed To Deduct Tax At Source (Tds) As Required Under Chapter Xvii-B Of The Income-Tax Act & Also Failed To File Tds Returns, On Scrutiny, It Was Found That The Assessee Had Debited The Following Expenditures In Its Profit & Loss Account Without Deduction Of Tax At Source: Dumper Hire Charges: Rs.8,42,365 Lease Rent: Rs.23,27,000

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

dated 25.07.23 and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to promptly respond to the notices issued by the CITA) and cooperate in the proceedings. Failure

Vikash Bafna, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 30(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1192/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1192/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Vikash Bafna Vs Ito, Ward 30(4), 26/6, Hindustan Park Gariahat Aaykar Bhavan, Dakshin, 2, Kolkata-700029 Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700031 Pan No. : Ahcpb 7851 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Amit Agarwal, Ld Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Naskar, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ao Has Treated The Cash Deposit In Assessee'S Bank Account To An Extent Of Rs.12,79,500/- As Unexplained Cash Deposit In The Hands Of The Assessee. It Was The Submission That These Were Amounts Received By The Assessee On Account Of Its Agreement With The Smart Shop Travel & Beyond Operated By One Hermes. It Was Submitted That The Agreement With Hermes Was On 12.06.2014 & The Assessee Had Also Been Disclosing The Income Therefrom. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Has Transferred The Funds To Hermes Also Which Has Not Been Considered By The Ao. It Was The Submission That Admittedly The Assessee Has Not Reconciled The Bank

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 727/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

requires fresh examination by the JAO and assessee is directed to substantiate its claim with necessary documents. AO is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard. In case of failure, assessee shall not be given second leniency. 15. With regard to disallowance under section

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 726/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 725/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 724/BANG/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 723/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

Shruthi Kishore, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 550/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Upadhya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69ASection 80T

submission before me in support of his grounds of appeal. Appellant has challenged the issue of notices during assessment proceedings stating that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not given to her. However, after going through system and records, it is seen that these notices were issued to the appellant

DCIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 486/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

DCIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 485/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 484/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

DCIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 483/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 482/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

Bandigadi Chandrappashetty Rajashekarappa, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimoga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 307/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

Officer is 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