← 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

Maithan Alloys Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1347/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1347/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Maithan Alloys Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 4Th Floor, Ideal Centre Vs Circle-1(1), Kolkata 9, Ajc Bose Road Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabcm7758B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Lower Authorities Erred In Denying The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80M Of The Act Towards Inter-Corporate Dividends At Rs.19,48,050/-. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That In The Income Tax Return (Itr) Originally Filed As Well As Subsequently Revised, The Assessee Did Not Make The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80M Of The Act For Inter-Corporate Dividend. However, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, This Claim Was Raised & On The Strength Of The Judgement Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Reported In [1998]

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250Section 80JSection 80M

check the correctness of the claim made u/s 80M of the Act for which assessee shall file necessary documents on being provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee are allowed

M/S. Skylark Fiscal Sevices Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153B

conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. 6. The aforesaid Directions issued ... conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 [or section 153B], the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.” 6. Now, the contention

M/S. Skylark Fiscal Sevices Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 240/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153B

conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. 6. The aforesaid Directions issued ... conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 [or section 153B], the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received.” 6. Now, the contention

Ashish Nitharwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 42/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

case, the ld. CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in passing ex-parte assessment order without 2 Pawan Agarwal vs. ITO providing sufficient opportunity of being heard as no notices of the hearing was served properly on the assessee appellant. 2. That on the law and in the facts ... both have passed the ex-parte order and the assessee was not 6 Pawan Agarwal vs. ITO provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/submissions before the ld. AO on merits as the orders of the both the authority

Ram Sahay, Sawaimadhopur vs. ITO Ward-1, Sawai Madhopur

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

ITA 754/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tatiwala (CA)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

assessee prayed that the Id. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order and the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to advance his arguments/submissions before the ld. CIT(A) in the interest of equity and justice ... mentioned in his order. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the 6 Ram Sahay vs. ITO assessee was provided 3 opportunity of being heard but assessee has not availed and has not filed any submission in support of the contentions so raised by the assessee. Even the bench noted that

Roop Kumar Chopra, Jaipur vs. PCIT Jaipur 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

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

Digambar Rajaram Lonari, Mudhol, Bagalkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bijapur

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

ITA 178/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi S. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 69A

interest of justice, we remit this issue to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to produce all the Page 4 of 4 relevant documents to substantiate his claim and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournment for early disposal

M/S. Islamic Academy of Education, Mangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Bangalore

ITA 610/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 12A

case may be, he shall pass an order in writing cancelling the registration of such trust or institution after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard". 6.7 Thereafter, he submitted that the above provisions of Section 12AB [4] of the Act was substituted by the Finance Act, 2022 with effect ... otherwise of any specified violation; ii pass an order in writing, cancelling the registration of such trust or institution, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, for such previous year and all subsequent previous years, if he is satisfied that one or more specified violations have taken place

M/S. Manjunatheshwara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1155/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Manjunatheshwara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., The Income Tax No. 20, 3Rd Main, Officer, 2Nd Block, Ward – 6(2)(2), Ring Road, Bangalore. Nandini Layout, Vs. Bangalore – 560 096. Pan: Aakas1721M Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Chaithanya V Mudurubettu
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

interest of justice, we are remitting the issue back to the FAA for fresh consideration. The FAA is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. The assessee is directed to produce the necessary documents for substantiating its case

Mrs. Parvati Bandi, Iikal vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

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

ITA 1150/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sathish Patil, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel V, JCIT (DR)
Section 68Section 69

remitting the issue back to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. The assessee is directed to produce the necessary documents for substantiating its case

Anita Siroya, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1134/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.K Singhvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 57

justice, we are remitting the issue back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. The assessee is directed to produce the necessary documents for substantiating her case

Sunil Tibrewal Foundation, Bhiwandi, Thane vs. CIT (Exemptions), Pune

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

ITA 3520/MUM/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Anushree GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 10Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

section 12AB of the Act. Needless to mention no order shall be Page 5 Sunil Tibrewal Foundation ITA no.3520/Mum/2023 passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee

Salman Maqsood Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3497/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsalman Maqsood Khan Income Tax Officer, Ward – 31(1)(1), Winde Mere, 2B- Flat No. 141 Mumbai Near Mega Mall, Opposite बनाम/ New Link Road, Oshiwara Mumbai- 400053 Vs. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Bjfpk9006F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shashak A. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

novo adjudication after consideration of the details/submissions filed by the assessee. Needless to mention no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish any other information as may be sought by the AO. As the matter

Prakash Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 12(2), Mumbai

ITA 3145/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to re-adjudicate the issue after giving the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. According to the Tribunal it was not possible for the Appellant to produce all the creditors before the Assessing Officer and therefore ... this issue back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication after granting the Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2011-12 Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that while deciding appeal for the Assessment Year 2009-10, we have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer

The Boston Consulting Group India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1760/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blethe Boston Consulting Group (India) V. Dcit – 3(3)(2) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 14Th Floor, Nariman Bhavan Mumbai - 400020 227, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aabcb3524G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri J.D. Mistri Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Pardeshi

Section 144C(5)Section 234DSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

determine the Arm’s Length Price as per law. It is needless to say that assessee may be given a proper opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purpose. 26. With regard to Ground No. 4 which is in respect of short granting

Shakti Sewa Samiti Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, Delhi

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

ITA 3482/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Priyansh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Anand Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Exemptions ("Ld. CIT(E)") has erred in cancelling registration granted u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) is hereby rejected without granting proper opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the law, Ld. CIT(E) has erred ... interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of ld. CIT(E) pass an order afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/02/2024

Shakti Sewa Samiti Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 3481/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Priyansh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Anand Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 80G

interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of ld. CIT(E) pass an order afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2 Shakti Sewa Samiti Charitable Trust 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1863/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received

Supreme Ceramics Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3761/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

assessee is as under: “2. Because, the learned lower authority grossly erred in upholding the validity of total addition without providing proper opportunity of being heard merely because on the solitary date after serving the remand report AR could not present for the reason beyond his control, failed to attend ... proper opportunity to represent the case before the ld. CIT(A). Since, no prejudice would be caused to the revenue, if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee, we 2 Supreme Ceramics Ltd. remand the matter to the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues afresh after

M/S Trident Group Limited, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 307/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 307/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Trident Group Ltd., Vs The Pr.Cit, Sco 20-21, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaecm1012H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short ‘The Ld.Pcit’) Dated 27.03.2023 U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Pertaining To 2018-19 Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 263

Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. He further directed that the AO will allow the assessee opportunity of being heard and make submissions and then to compute the disallowance in line with the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income