← 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

Ashish Shivhare, Jabalpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)-I, Bhopa;, Bhopal

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

ITA 50/JAB/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 50/Jab/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ashish Shivhare, Vs The Acit, Central-I, D-10, Adarsh Nagar, Narmada Road, Bhopal Jabalpur 482001 (Mp) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Arups 6450 P Assessee By : Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.12.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR

back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall comply to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) from time to time without seeking

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur vs. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, Jabalpur

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

ITA 39/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

Principal CIT-1, Jabalpur under section 127 of the Act is bad in law as no reason were recorded and no opportunity of being heard was given and no facts that Principal CIT of Raipur and Principal CIT Jabalpur were in agreement was recorded. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income

Shri Gaurav Agrawal, Jabalpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur

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

ITA 37/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

Principal CIT-1, Jabalpur under section 127 of the Act is bad in law as no reason were recorded and no opportunity of being heard was given and no facts that Principal CIT of Raipur and Principal CIT Jabalpur were in agreement was recorded. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income

Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 8870/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.8870/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Magnet House, 2Nd Floor, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacf- 0742- K ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit-2(3), 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar- CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14A

month in which the direction is received. The provision specifies that there shall be no requirement for affording an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee prior to passing of an order of final assessment. 8. The question posed relates essentially to whether the impugned order of Final Assessment dated ... stand expanded. The interests of both the Assessee and the Revenue to respond to the proposed variations has been protected and an opportunity to be heard has been specifically provided for under sub-section (11). Thus where Legislature provided for any variation in assessment over and above that proposed

Satinder Paul Gupta (Through Sahil Gupta, Legal Heir), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-6(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 2977/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice C.V. Bhadang & Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Blea.Yr. :2015-16 Satinder Paul Gupta Vs. Dcit, Circle 6(2), (Through Sahil Gupta, Legal New Delhi Heir), House No. 11, Road No. 63, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (Pan: Aappg2434D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Department By Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

canvassed by the assessee in his application dated 16.11.2017 and thereafter pass a speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in support of his application. 10. Resultantly, for statistical purposes, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed, as above

Ramesh Mannava, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as mentioned herein above

ITA 252/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam01 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 252/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mr. Ramesh Mannava, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5-60-213/1, Msr Cotton Ward-2(1), Corporation, 4/4 Ashok Nagar, Guntur. Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522007. Pan: Agdpm 8289 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Revenue Authorities ie., the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC have passed the ex-parte orders without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remitted back

The U P N Central Co-Op Bank Limited, Puri vs. ACIT, Circle 5(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 293/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.293/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) The Upn Central Co-Op Bank Ltd Vs Acit, Circle-5(1), Bhubaneswar Kacheri Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. :Aabat 1861 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 22.06.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053855194(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Without Giving Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee, Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte. It Was The Submission The Issues In This Appeal May Be Restored To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication & The Assessee May Be Given One More Opportunity To Provide The Materials Before The Ld. Cit(A) To Substantiate Its Claim. 3. In Reply, Ld.Sr.Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Authorities Below. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Was Given

For Appellant: Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR

assessment year 2016-2017. 2. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was the submission the issues in this appeal may be restored ... natural justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to produce all the material evidences in respect of his claim before

The World Retails Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assess0ee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.292/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) The World Retails Private Limited, Vs Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(2), Plot No.380, Bomikhal, Behind Bhubaneswar Shiv Mandir, Bhubaneswar-10 Pan No. :Aadct 4042 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25.07.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054564519(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. None Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. An Adjournment Application Dated 27.11.2023, Which Was Received By The Registry On 29.11.2023, Was Filed By The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee, Thereby Seeking 30 Days Time To Collect The Papers & Documents Relating To The Present Appeal. However, Looking To The Facts Of The Case As Also The Impugned Order Is An Ex-Parte Order On Account Of Non-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR

natural justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to produce all the material evidences in respect of his claim before

Mr. Ganesh Agrawal, Rajgangpur, Sundargarh vs. ITO Ward-1, Rourkela

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

ITA 271/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.271/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Mr. Ganesh Agrawal, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Main Road, Rajgangpur, Sundargarh-770017 Pan No. :Abypa 5029 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15.05.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1052822766(1) For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. None Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 35 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Along With Affidavit Mentioning The Sufficient Reasons For The Delay, To Which The Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Seriously Object. In View Of The Above, The Delay Of 35 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Disposed Off On Merits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr.DR

natural justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to produce all the material evidences in respect of his claim before

Biswadarshi Das, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT Circle- 2 (1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 105/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2015-16 Biswadarshi Biswadarshi Das, Das, Plot Plot Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), No.252/7, Jharana Lane No.252/7, Jharana Lane-1, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Aerodrome Road, Bhimpur, Aerodrome Road, Bhimpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaypd 9770 C (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, B.K.Mahapatra, Ca Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri B.K.MahapatraFor Respondent: Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak
Section 263Section 63

after giving this direction, he further went on to set aside the assessment order and directed that the assessee may be given sufficient opportunity of being heard in the matter. It was the submission that the addition per se was not permissible insofar as the Assessing Officer has considered

Maqsood Abdul Karim Vasaiwala, Nagpada Mumbai vs. ITO-20(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2534/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

restore the appeal to its original number before the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh after giving the 5 Appellant an opportunity of being heard. The Appellant is directed to file all the relevant details and documents on which the Appellant wishes to place reliance before CIT(A) forthwith

Sheetal Suhas Ghugare, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(3)(3), Vashi Railway Station

ITA 2459/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Kanupriya Damor
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh after granting the Appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Appellant has directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings and not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is clarified that the Appellant would

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Intl Tax Circle 3(2) (1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1758/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

allowing the tax rate of 15 percent under the Treaty, as claimed by the Appellant, without any cogent reasons and without providing any opportunity of being heard. 3 The Appellant prays before the Hon'ble ITAT to direct the Ld. AO to apply tax rate of 15 percent under

M/S Raghunandan Mishra Charitable Trust, E-57 Sector 63 Noida, H.O, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 1791/DEL/2023[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraita No.1791 & 1790/Del/2023 Assessment Year: -- M/S. Raghunandan Mishra Cit (Exemption) Charitable Trust, E-57, Vs. Lucknow Sector-63, Noida, H.O. Gautam Buddha Nagar Pan No. Aadtr6276N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12A

convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance in both these appeals is that the CIT(E) rejected the impugned applications without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of principle of natural justice. 4. At the very outset, the counsel stated that the notices on the IT portal ... appeals to the files of the CIT(E) with a direction to decide the impugned applications afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to comply with the notices and attend the proceedings in support of its claim of registration

M/S Raghunandan Mishra Charitable Trust, Noida vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

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

ITA 1790/DEL/2023[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraita No.1791 & 1790/Del/2023 Assessment Year: -- M/S. Raghunandan Mishra Cit (Exemption) Charitable Trust, E-57, Vs. Lucknow Sector-63, Noida, H.O. Gautam Buddha Nagar Pan No. Aadtr6276N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12A

convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance in both these appeals is that the CIT(E) rejected the impugned applications without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of principle of natural justice. 4. At the very outset, the counsel stated that the notices on the IT portal ... appeals to the files of the CIT(E) with a direction to decide the impugned applications afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to comply with the notices and attend the proceedings in support of its claim of registration

Poonam Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 856/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. and Shri Aman Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P N Barnwal, CIT(DR)
Section 124Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

learned CIT(A) is bad both on facts and in law as the same has been passed without giving the adequate opportunity of being heard in gross violation of principle of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both

South Eastern Coalfieds Limited, Bilaspur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 314/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 314/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495006 Pan: Aadcs2066E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Ajit Korde, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 246ASection 270ASection 270A(9)

dispose off the appeal afresh. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee appellant. 13. As we have restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Appeals) with a direction

Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Bhilai vs. CPC, Bangalore, Jao: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result present appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 89/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.89/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year:2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250

amount of Income from Business and Profession offered for tax in the computation of total income. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be provided to the assessee. 10. In the result present appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Manav Motors, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is disposed-off, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 151/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 151/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 269SSection 270A(2)(a)Section 68

issue afresh in terms of facts and the provisions of law. It is also directed that the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce all the significant evidence and contentions which were raised before us. Resultantly, in the interest of principle of natural justice

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

section (2AB) of section 35 of the Act are fulfilled, pass an order in writing in Form No. 3CM: Provided that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be granted to the company before rejecting an application. (7) Approval of a programme under sub-section (2AA) shall be subject