← 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

Champaben Naresh Limbani, Village Nani Khakhar, Tal. Mandavi, Dist. Kutchh vs. The ITO Ward-3, Gandhidham(Bhuj-1), Gandhidham

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

ITA 834/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 11ISection 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148ASection 148BSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee: 1 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly passed the order without providing proper opportunity of being heard. Champaben Naresh Limbani v. ITO ITA No. 834/Rjt/2024 (AY 2016-17) 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed reopening of assessment

Bhavesh Govindbhai Dadhaniya, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Rajkot

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

ITA 762/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 762 /Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhavesh Govindbhai Dadhaniya Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Rajkot 3-Jasaraj Nagar, B/H. Umiyani Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Chowk, Nr. Umiyaji Pan, 150Ft Ring Road, Ring Road, Mavdi Area, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot – 360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpd 6290 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148

relied upon the orders of the lower authorities below. However, has not objected to the prayer of the assessee for providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the orders

The Motihari Central Cooperative Bank Ltdove Bna, Motihari vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 557/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, DR
Section 250

twelve grounds of appeal but specifically pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the Ld. AR of the assessee prayed before the Bench to set aside the impugned order

Shobha Ramakrishnana Nair, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Aluva

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

ITA 810/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250

entirety to the file of AO to consider the case afresh in accordance with the law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to update the email id, contact number and addresses in the Income Tax portal

Kseb Employees Co Op Society, Kallarkutty vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 593/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Kseb Employees Co-Op. Society Kallarkutty Kallarkutty Po Assessment Unit Vs. Idukki 685 562 Nfac Kerala Delhi Pan No : Aacak8820H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mathew Joseph, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 30.4.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064480180(1) For The Ay 2020- 21 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

lending money to its members of the Society as per the byelaws of the society. The authorities below without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard have passed an order which is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice. Further, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ... since the order passed by the KSEB Employees Co Op Society, Kallarkutty, Idukki Page 5 of 5 authorities below are without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, we remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of AO for fresh consideration in accordance with

Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited, Ernakulam vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -1, Kochi

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

ITA 587/COCH/2024[A.Y 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited Athani Aluva Adit, Range-1 Vs. Ernakulam Kochi Kerala 683 585 Pan No : Aaack9968Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mrs. Remya S. Menon, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.4.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064318699(1) For The Ay 2011-12 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Mrs. Remya S. Menon, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 250Section 40a

file submissions along with supporting documentary evidences. However, the assessee has not availed the benefit of opportunities of hearing provided. The details of opportunities of being heard provided to the assessee are tabulated below for ready reference: Sl.No. Date of Date of Remarks Notice/letter hearing ... action of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without deciding the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order and without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee is illegal and bad in law. Further, the ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that it is obligatory

Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam vs. Christ Educational Trust, Ernakulam

In the result, both appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 221/COCH/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Christ Educational Trust 3/356A, Christ Educational Trust Airapuram Po Vs. Ito Kuzhoor Ernakulam Kerala 683541 Pan No : Aabtc23768Q Appellant Respondent Co No.22/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Christ Educational Trust 3/356A, Christ Educational Trust Airapuram Po Vs. Kuzhoor Ito Kerala 683541 Ernakulam Pan No : Aabtc23768Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri R. Lokanathan, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2025 & 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 10.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059567754(1) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection Against The Said

For Appellant: Shri R. Lokanathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 10Section 10(23)(vi)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 250

date. Further, due to the flood situation in Kerala, only part compliance could be made before the AO and AO without giving the opportunity of being heard, passed an order u/s. 144 of the Act by violating the principles of Natural Justice. Lastly, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ... that due to the flood situation in Kerala, only part compliance could be made before the AO and the AO without granting the opportunity of being heard, has passed an order u/s. 144 of the Act by violating the principles of Natural Justice. Further, it is also submitted

P Abdul Kareem, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 255/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 P Abdul Kareem Puthenveetil House Thamarassery Ito Vs. Kozhikode Ward-2(3) Kerala 673 573 Kozhikode Pan No :Ajfpa2972D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rishal K., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

present appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. Needles to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the necessary documents/evidences/information in support of his claim and shall

Shashi Gupta, Madho Singh Circle vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 498/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT- DR a
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 270ASection 57

hearing, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the impugned order was passed ex parte without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. It was further submitted that the notice(s) issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were inadvertently sent to an old email

Satish Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

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

ITA 1526/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, C.A. (Thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 127Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 69A

provisions of law. Further, the alleged order under section 127 has been passed without recording reasons for doing so and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, it is hereby prayed to quash the notice under Section 148 as well as the order so passed ... Appeals) erred in law and facts by approving the action of Ld. A.O of passing the order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As same is against principles of natural justice, it is hereby prayed to quash the order so passed. 5. On the facts

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 454/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

argument on how the case is barred by limitation. The A.O. has passed the assessment orders within the time limit after providing sufficient opportunities of being heard in the interest of natural justice. Further, it is also submitted that the assessee did not raise this ground before ... record. Books of account were required to be produced." It is evident from the above findings that the incumbent A.O. provided an opportunity of being heard before making the assessment order. The assessee did not raise point of barring of limitation or issuance of notice

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 453/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

argument on how the case is barred by limitation. The A.O. has passed the assessment orders within the time limit after providing sufficient opportunities of being heard in the interest of natural justice. Further, it is also submitted that the assessee did not raise this ground before ... record. Books of account were required to be produced." It is evident from the above findings that the incumbent A.O. provided an opportunity of being heard before making the assessment order. The assessee did not raise point of barring of limitation or issuance of notice

M/S. Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT-I, Lucknow

In the result, appeals vide I

ITA 357/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

argument on how the case is barred by limitation. The A.O. has passed the assessment orders within the time limit after providing sufficient opportunities of being heard in the interest of natural justice. Further, it is also submitted that the assessee did not raise this ground before ... record. Books of account were required to be produced." It is evident from the above findings that the incumbent A.O. provided an opportunity of being heard before making the assessment order. The assessee did not raise point of barring of limitation or issuance of notice

Bahadur Singh, Zirakpur vs. ITO Ward 3(5), Chandigarh

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

ITA 706/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54B

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 1,41,53,773 without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard it is requested to set aside the order and restore the appeal to CIT Appeal for adjudication on merit. 2. That

Women Empowerment Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2209/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.2208/Ahd/2024 & 2209/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : -Na- Women Empowerment The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. 7, Surohi Park-2 Opp. Rushikesh Garden Nava Nikol Khodiyarnagar S.O., Ahmedabad – 382 350 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatw 4894 N (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Adjournment Application Filed Revenue By : Shri Pushpendra Singh Chaudhary, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Trust Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad: • Order Dated 21.11.2024, Passed Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Rejecting The Application For Registration In Form 10Ab; & • Order Dated 25.11.2024, Passed Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act, Rejecting The Application For Approval.

For Appellant: Adjournment Application filedFor Respondent: Shri Pushpendra Singh Chaudhary, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for decision afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival submissions. In the interest of justice and fair play and having regard to the facts ... hereby set aside. The matters are restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad, who shall pass fresh orders after affording adequate opportunity of being heard and in accordance with law. 8.2. The assessee is also directed to comply with all notices issued by the CIT(Exemption

Women Empowerment Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2208/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.2208/Ahd/2024 & 2209/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : -Na- Women Empowerment The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. 7, Surohi Park-2 Opp. Rushikesh Garden Nava Nikol Khodiyarnagar S.O., Ahmedabad – 382 350 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatw 4894 N (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Adjournment Application Filed Revenue By : Shri Pushpendra Singh Chaudhary, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Trust Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad: • Order Dated 21.11.2024, Passed Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Rejecting The Application For Registration In Form 10Ab; & • Order Dated 25.11.2024, Passed Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act, Rejecting The Application For Approval.

For Appellant: Adjournment Application filedFor Respondent: Shri Pushpendra Singh Chaudhary, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for decision afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival submissions. In the interest of justice and fair play and having regard to the facts ... hereby set aside. The matters are restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad, who shall pass fresh orders after affording adequate opportunity of being heard and in accordance with law. 8.2. The assessee is also directed to comply with all notices issued by the CIT(Exemption

Goodview Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 14(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2634/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr.DR

interest of justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. AO for readjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) by the assessee to the Legal Aid Services

Dedhia Music Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exmption), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 744/MUM/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Aditya AjgaonkarFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 8Section 80G

satisfied, pass an order in writing rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (c) where the application is made under sub-clause (vi) of the said clause, pass an order in writing provisionally registering the trust or institution for a period ... sent to the applicant : Provided that no order under sub-clause (ii) shall be passed unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard." "Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. 11. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income

Dedhia Music Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exmption), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 743/MUM/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Aditya AjgaonkarFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 8Section 80G

satisfied, pass an order in writing rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (c) where the application is made under sub-clause (vi) of the said clause, pass an order in writing provisionally registering the trust or institution for a period ... sent to the applicant : Provided that no order under sub-clause (ii) shall be passed unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard." "Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. 11. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income

Alchemist Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., Malad West Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3802/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani (virtual appearance)For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 69A

also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Assessing Officer for the expeditious completion of the assessment. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. M/s. Alchemist Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. 11. In the result