“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. Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Ujjawal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1371/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.1371&1815/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Ujjawal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.).............................……….……Appellant 113, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Aabct1459N] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(4), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr & Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order 23.03.2015 & Another Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 28.09.2015 Against The Assessee. The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] Dated 23.03.2015 & The Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 28.09.2015, Which Is Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2015. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Stated At The Bench That Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order & Relating To The Same Assessee, Therefore, They May Be Heard Together & Decided On Merits Of The Case. The Ld. Ar Has Further Stated That Ita No.1371/Kol/2024 Is Delayed By 404 Days & Ita

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

appeals be remanded back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the issues afresh by allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard to present its case. He further contended that the ld. CIT(A) did not examine the issue comprehensively and simply dismissed the appeal. Hence

Pande Family Charitable Trust, Bajaj Nagar Enclave, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Kailash Heights, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur

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

ITA 990/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) ( Th. V.C.)

Section 12A

eligible for registration u/s 12AB of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the Learned CIT Exemption failed to provide reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. That the Learned CIT Exemption failed to discharge the burden of proof which squarely lay upon him before rejecting ... Exemption itself at page 7 of the impugned order. 3. That the Id. CIT Exemption failed to provide reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. That the hon'ble bench will very kindly find that as on date the certificate of registration under Rajasthan Public Trust

Sarvangin Vikas Sanstha, Alwar vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

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

ITA 848/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2024

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H.)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8

pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that they were deprived off availing adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) in the application for registration/recognition. We note that the learned Commissioner of income tax (exemption) has denied ... pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that they were deprived off availing adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) in the application for registration/recognition and further submitted that the assessee has filed an application for registration under

Subhash Hiralal Sanchati, Surat vs. ITO, WD 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 591/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni (C.A) (V.C.)For Respondent: Srhi Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 132(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 68

order so framed be held as bad and illegal. Ground 3 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not granting proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant while framing the appellate order. Ground 4 Without prejudice to the above, the principles of natural justice is violated ... office by NaFAC. Further, a notice u/s 142(1) dated 24/11/2021 along with questionnaire was issued and served on the assessee giving an opportunity of being heard and fixed for compliance on 04/12/2021. In response to, assessee has filed written submission requiring reason recorded of reopening of the case

Gau Jeev Parmarth Sewa Sanstha, Alwar vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

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

ITA 333/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H.)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8

pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that assessee was deprived off availing adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(E) in the application for registration/recognition and further submitted that the assessee has filed an application for registration under

Zahir Kasam Memon, Mumbai vs. Addl-JCIT (A)-2, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 914/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Murtaza Quresh Ghadiali- CA &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh-

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

following grounds of appeal: 1. “On the facts and circumstances in law the CPC have passed the order without giving any opportunity of being heard. 2. The Auditor have by mistakenly putted the total amount of PF and ESIC whereas as per section 36(1)(va) only the Employee Contribution ... reject the application for condonation, as justice must not seem to be rendered but it must be rendered. Assessee cannot be denied the opportunity of being heard which is the basic principles of natural justice. E. It is also noted that there is no malafide intention on behalf of assessee

Gautam Patel, Mumbai vs. National E Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands Allowed

ITA 4637/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj

Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue raised by the assessee by passing a detailed order on merits. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee stands Allowed. In the result the appeal filed

Nipa Chetan Shah, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3661/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrinipa Chetan Shah V/S. Ito 19(2)(4) 5, 39, Sai Niwas, बनाम Piramal Chambers Khotachi Wadi, Girgaum, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400004 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aqqps8446Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 147Section 250Section 68

Justice. 2.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that: (i) The Appellant was not given fair, reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard; and (ii) In any case, the Appellant was prevented by reasonable causes beyond it control to make effective and proper representation. WITHOUT PREJUDICE ... Before us, the assessee has taken various grounds of appeal including that the assessee was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard. In this regard, an affidavit has been filed by the assessee on 22.08.2024 submitting that no notices were received on the e-mail Id mentioned

Santosh More, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1) Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug

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

ITA 3203/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh More Income Tax Officer Room No.6/14, Hirji 20(3)(1) Bhojraj Chawl, Room No. 621, Kalachowki S.O., 6Th Floor, Ambi Khalasa, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400033. Lalbaug, Pan:Aotpm3679Q Mumbai- 400012. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rayan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. A.R

Section 69A

issue back to the Ld.AO to verify the additional evidences field by the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result appeal filed

Dhiral Ramesh Sangoi, Koparkhairane vs. ITO, Ward 19(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2282/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr. D/R

Section 144

appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided on merits of the case, after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 30th September

Mohd Sajid Mohd Mazahir Shaikh, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 2231/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mohd Sajid Mohd Mazahir Shaikh Nfac, Delhi 65 Lala Nigam Road, Colaba Vs. Mumbai-400 005

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

granted mechanically. 4. For that the Ld. A0 erred in passing the assessment order ex-parte without providing the assessee any effective opportunity of being heard. 5. For that Ld. CIT(A) also erred in passing the appellate order ex-parte without providing the appellant any effective opportunity of being

Bhagyavanti Mahavir Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO -WD 1(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for

ITA 1368/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 143(3)Section 250

resulted into non-appreciation of the documents relevant for adjudication of the issue, breach of the principle of natural justice and denial of opportunity of being heard. 4. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee on the merits of the case, but not on this ... suffice to say by considering the documents filed by the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner as also before us and by giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus the case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner accordingly. The Assessee is also directed to cooperate with

Sanjay Kumar Prop Shree Balaji Oil Mil, Bhiwani vs. DCIT Central Circle-I, Gurgaon

In the result, the approvals granted in the cases before us are established to be invalid and consequential assessments not sustainable

ITA 429/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjay Kumar, Vs Dcit, Prop. Shree Balaji Oil Mill, Central Circle-I, Ch. Dadri, Raillway Road, Gurgaon. Bhiwani, Haryana – 127 306. Pan: Aicpk8564H Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sunil Gupta, Vs Dcit, Prop. M/S Op Cotton & Oil Mills, Central Circle-I, Charkhi Dadri, Gurgaon. Bhiwani, Haryana. Pan: Aerpp6633H

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA &For Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR

Section 127(2)Section 153D

approval is not accorded in a mechanical manner. 6.2 It was submitted that while granting approval the concerned authority has mentioned that proper opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee and all issues appearing from the material on record were duly examined and relevant copies of seized materials ... accorded in the above cases for the above mentioned A.Y (s) considering the facts as submitted that 1. Proper opportunity of being heard were provided to assessee 2. All the issues appearing from the material on record were duly examined. 3. Relevant copies of seized documents were verified before passing

Munni Lal Alias Maniram (Through Legal Heir Manoj Kumar), Dadri Gautambudh Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3023/DEL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roymunni Lal Alias Maniram Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir Manoj Kumar), Ward 2(2), Noida Dadri Gautambudh Uttar Pradesh- Nagar, C/O Sanjeev Anand & Associates, 136, Navyug Market Uttar Pradesh – 201001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aevpl8902K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

ward 2(2) observation the issue is remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for his consideration afresh upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time

Shanta Sharma, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1056/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roymrs. Shanta Sharma Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2)(3) B-13, Gda Flats, Lohia Ghaziabad, Nagar, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh 201001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Besps3927K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

With the aforesaid observation the issue is, thus, remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for his consideration afresh upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file

Sunny, Patiala vs. ITO, W-1, Patiala

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as and by way

ITA 807/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal. The Relevant Assessment Year Is Assessment Year 2017-18. The Corresponding Previous Year Is From 01.04.2016 To 31.03.2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057220538 (1) Dated 19.10.2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi,CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 69A

form 36 which are as under : 1. That the CIT(A) has wrongly passed an ex-party order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard as the last hearing notice was of 18.05.2022 and the order is passed on 19.10.2023 i.e. after almost 17 months of last notice

Gujarat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 837/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 837/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Gujarat Tea Processor & Packers Principal Ltd., बनामVs Commissioner Of . Waghbakri House, Income Tax-1, Opp. Parimal Garden, Ahmedabad. Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacg5594L ( ""यथ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N Dsouza, Cit.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit, Ahmedabad-1, Dated 29.02.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018- 19, Passed In His Revisional Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N Dsouza, CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, he passed the impugned order u/s.263 of the Act, after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, whereby the order of the AO was set aside with a direction to complete the assessment afresh after considering the disallowance

Arunbhai Nimbalkar Gajare, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 567/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.567/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Arunbhai Nimbalkar Gajare The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 2, Krishna Appt Ward-5(3)(4) V/S. Bhudarpura Road Ahmedabad Ambawadi Ahmedabasd – 380 006 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpg 8637 L अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in passing an ex Parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and law requires to be quashed. 2. The Learned ... after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present his case. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to consider any documentary evidence or explanations the assessee may furnish in support of his case. The assessee is directed

Sons of the Immaculate Conception of India, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Kottayam

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

ITA 3/COCH/2024[AY.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms.Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Senior DR

Section 11Section 11(4)

issue back to his file for 4 ITA No.3/Coch/2024. Sons of the Immaculate Conception of India. deciding the issue afresh after providing effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 29th

Manglam Vardhman Developers LLP, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, with no orders as to cost

ITA 970/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 154Section 250Section 40

brokerage in advertisement and marketing expenses. The scrutiny assessment was completed without any disallowance. Later, the AO issued a 154 Notice and after opportunity of being heard, had disallowed the interest on TDS payment by observing that the payment comes under fines and penalties and interest category which