“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

M/S G M Builders, Mumbai vs. PCIT(Mumbai), Old-ACIT Circle-22(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Share Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 270A

erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiries as he deemed necessary, pass such orders thereon as the circumstances of the case justify

ITO Ward 39 (2) vs. Kimti Lal Jain

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

ITA 4091/DEL/2006[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit, Vs. Consulting Engineering Circle-4(2), Services (India) Pvt. Ltd, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 184, Platinum New Delhi Tower, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc5110G Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Shri Tarun Chanana, Adv Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT DR

Section 127Section 142Section 143(3)Section 250

High Court and proceeded to pass the order under Consulting Engineering Services (India) Pvt. Ltd section 250 of the Act without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant which is against the principles of natural justice. 1.8 That due to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed

Mizoram Rural Bank, Aizawl vs. ACIT, Circle Shillong

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

ITA 185/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Itat With The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 144Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

issues on which the assessee could not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, while the Ld. AO would give ample opportunity of being heard, the assessee would do well to avail of such opportunities to present his case. I.T.A. No. 185/GTY/2024 Mizoram Rural Bank, Aizwal

Income Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Mahesh Balakrishnan, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 706/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: None

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69A

that of his previous Auditor and as such he was not aware of the notices. It is also contented that had an opportunity of being heard been given to the assesse, the assesse would have explained with ease the Ground of Appeal.” 6. As seen from the said remand report

Sahrdaya Tbii Hub, Irinjalakuda vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Ernakulam

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

ITA 647/COCH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

registration should be granted as per the revised application filed by the assessee incorporating the correct Section code. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be provided to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and file necessary documents, if considered necessary, in support

Sahrdaya Educational Trust, Irinjalakuda vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Ernakulam

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

ITA 646/COCH/2024[2024-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2024-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar P J

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Vijayarani Purushothaman, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

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

ITA 793/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 69

with the direction to Ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits and also by passing a speaking order after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open

Sadguru Kabir Samajsevi Sanstha Samiti, Ujjain vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

ITA 605/IND/2024[NIL]Status: HeardITAT Indore11 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisadguru Kabir Samajsevi Cit Exemption, Sanstha Samiti, Bhopal Kadai, बनाम/ Rupakhedi Tarana, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaxas3233R Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2025

Section 12ASection 253

mentioning that genuineness of donation received could not be verified and order for rejection u/s 12AB has been issued without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard which is not justified.” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 10.03.2025 nobody on behalf ... registration U/s 12AB of the Act was rejected by Ld. CIT Exemption. The assessee prayed in the grounds of appeal for giving reasonable opportunity of being heard for presenting the case. We observe that prior to the passing of the “Impugned Assessment Order” the Ld. CIT Exemption had followed

Iqbal, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

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

ITA 64/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Iqbal V. Ito-3(2) C/O Sanjay Saxena Hardoi 12, Pratap Enclave Bisrat G.T. Road Shahjahanpur Tan/Pan:Aefpi2064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Saxena, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Saxena, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271FSection 56(2)(vii)

this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. During the course of hearing, the Ld. A.R. had also argued that the approval under section

Ravi Kant Sharma, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer -2 (3), Bareilly

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

ITA 62/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Kant Sharma V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 45, Athayen Faridpur Bareilly Athana Bareilly Tan/Pan:Bcfps0514M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

appeal in limine, by passing the impugned order ex-parte owing to non-compliance of notice of hearing, without affording sufficient and effective opportunity of being heard to the "appellant". 1.2. BECAUSE non-compliance during assessment proceedings as well as during appellate proceedings before the ld. "CIT(A)" was caused ... consideration of this fact itself the matter deserves to be restored to Id. Assessing Officer for making assessment afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the "appellant". 1.3. BECAUSE even in the ex-parte order, irrespective of non- appearance of the assessee before

Mr Vishal Subhashgir Giri, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 254/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.254/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Mr. Vishal Subhashgir Vs Ito, Ward-1(5), Giri, Aurangabad 5, At Nimbayti, Post- Bahulkhede, Tal-Soygaon, Dist. Aurangabad-431120 Maharashtra Pan-Ayqpg9023P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 144Section 234CSection 250Section 69A

from agricultural operations. 9. The learned CIT Appeals erred in dismissing assessee's appeal without hearing the case on merits and affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The appellate proceedings, thus, suffer from principles of natural justice and needs to be set aside. 10. The assessee prays before your honour ... afford and allow him an opportunity of being heard in interest of natural justice and on merits of the case as well, before the lower authorities. 11. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, and delete all or any of the grounds of appeal. 3. At the outset

Sanskritik Mandal, Ahmednagar vs. DCIT Exemption, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2584/PUN/2024[-]Status: PendingITAT Pune11 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2584/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: N.A. Sanskritik Mandal, V The Commissioner Of At Dnyaneshwar Nagar, S Income Tax, Dnyaneshwar Ssk Ltd., Exemption, Pune. Post Bhende Sk, New Asan, Ahmednagar – 414605. Pan: Aabts1957M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Ld.Cit Exemption Has Erred In Not Granting Registration U/S 80G(5)(Vi) Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case. Your Appellant Prays For Grant Of Such Registration U/S S 80G(5)(Iv) Of It Act.

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

should not be cancelled. However, the assessee neither furnished compliance to the show cause notice nor availed the opportunity of being heard. Since the assessee did not furnish any explanation to the discrepancies communicated, the ld.CIT(E) held that the assessee has failed to comply despite giving sufficient opportunities including ... opportunity of being heard. He, therefore, rejected the application ITA No.2584/PUN/2024 [A] filed by the assessee for grant of registration under section 80G(5) of the Act and also the provisional approval dated 30.05.2022 u/s.80G(5)(vi) read with clause (iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) was cancelled

Ms Imsofer Manufacturing India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)– Pune and National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Pune and NFAC (Delhi)

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

ITA 1316/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule &

Section 154Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(A)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex parte order without granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Kailaswasi Narayan Alias Bapu Patil Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 620/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Supriya PowarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 68

decide the issues afresh on merits in light of the additional grounds and additional evidences filed by the assessee after allowing the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/evidences as may be required/ called upon

Roomle Das, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 50(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1654/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.1654/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Roomle Das……………………....…………...………......................……….……Appellant 4, East Belgharia 1St Lane, Belgharia, Kolkata – 700083. [Pan: Bfzpd1491R] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(4), Kolkata..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. J. Bhide, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Arup Chatterjee, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 11, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Against The Order Dated 18.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Case Of The Assessee Could Not Be Represented Before The Assessing Officer Due To Certain Reasons Which Were Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & Therefore, The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 Vide Order Dated 24.12.2019. The Ld. Counsel Further Submitted That Even The Penalty Was Imposed By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2021 Which Was Deleted By The Tribunal On The Ground That There Was Sufficient Cause For Non- Compliance To The Said Notice As The Reasons Were Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. The Ld. Ar Further Submitted That Before The Ld. Cit(A), The

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)

assessee is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2 I.T.A. No.1654/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Roomle Das 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Idris Mikdad Attarwala, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaridris Mikdad Attarwala, V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of 1603 Sumer Park, Seth बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle – Motishah X Lane, Byculla, 3(1), Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai 400 027, C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra Complex, Bandra(E) Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abupa1037C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh & Shri A.Pawar,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani,(Sr. DR)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough and compliant adjudication process. The ld. CIT(A) shall give proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance P a g e | 7 A.Y. 2018-19 Idris Mikdad Attarwala, Mumbai with principles of natural justice

Sudharani Basak Educational Trust, Thane vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 603/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 Sudharani Basak Educational The Income Tax Officer Trust, (Exem)-2(2), 345, 1St Floor, C Wing, Vs. 5Th Floor, Vashi Plaza, Sector-17, Piramal Chambers, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Lalbaugh, Parel, Vashi S.O (Thane) Mumbai Pan : Aaets8982P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash Shah &For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the issue

Shreekishan Joshi, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 43/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kukreja &For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 147

merits, we feel it appropriate to restore all the issues to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the issues raised

Shreekishan Joshi, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 42/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kukreja &For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 147

Shreekishan Joshi, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 41/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kukreja &For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 147