“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

Maa Ashram Charitable & Welfare Trust, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2264/DEL/2023[-]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: --- Maa Ashram Charitable & Ito Welfare Trust, E-104, Gaur Ward- 2 (1) (1) Green, Avenue, Shipra Sun Vs. Ghaziabad City, Phase-1, Ghaziabad Pan No.Aahtm7391K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12Section 12A

restore the appeal to the files of the CIT(E) with a direction to be decided afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(E) and present its claim of registration

Harun Ali, Muzaffarnagar vs. Prcit, Dehradun

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

ITA 1098/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatharun Ali Vs. Pr. Cit C/O. Chaurasia & Dehradun Association, C-2302, Advantage, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, Up-201 014 Pan No. Abwpa 4042 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Venketesh Chaurasia, Adv. Revenue By Shri T. James Singson, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.11.2023

remit the issue back to the file of the Pr. CIT and direct to consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.11.2023 (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi vs. Mohnish Mohan Mukkar, New Delhi

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

ITA 6939/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Shramaassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Mohnish Mohan Mukkar Central Circle – 25 A-49, Mohan Co-Operative, New Delhi Vs. Industrial Area, Mathura, New Delhi -110044 Pan No.Aaapm5649P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/11/2023

concerned bank directly and confront information received, if any, to the assessee and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 10. Decision announced in the open

Ajay Kumar Kanojia, Dubai(Uae) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur

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

ITA 275/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 275/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ajay Kumar Kanojia C/O. P.R Gupta & Co. A-233, Sector-19, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201 301 Pan: Aalpk4183B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Rai Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 203ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

framed without validly putting him to notice but also had suffered dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority without sufficient opportunity of being heard. 9. Apropos the merits of the case, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that both the lower authorities had grossly erred in most ... been filed by the assessee before me. Needless to say, the A.O in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who will remain at a liberty to further substantiate his claim/contentions on the basis of fresh documentary evidence. 12 Ajay

The Indian Missionary Movement, Kawardha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Kawardha, Kawardha

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

ITA 199/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 199/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year:2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Jain & R.B. Doshi, CA’sFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 253(5)Section 69A

filling Form 35. 6. In SOF, source of impugned cash deposit explained in detail. No finding on detailed SOF. No finding on improper opportunity of being heard, issuance of show cause notice at fag end of proceedings or detailed submissions filed at assessment stage. CIT(A) confirmed disallowance on irrelevant ... aide his order with a direction to dispose-off the same on merits. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the course of the de novo appellate proceedings. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are disposed

M/S. G.P. Infraventures, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Raipur

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

ITA 94/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from ... Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order. (b) where

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Raipur vs. Mesers G P Infraventures, Raipur

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

ITA 76/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

Shree Om Sai Developers, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 586/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Om Sai Developers Income Tax Officer, Ward- A/204, Yash Plaza, B/S. Ashirwad Vs. 3(3)(1), Room No.418 Aaykar Hotel, Varachha Road, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395006 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abyfs 0820 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 01/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/11/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest its case. Accordingly, we set aside the order of NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file

Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 348/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Harmony Yarns Private Vs. The Pcit-1, Limited, Surat Plot-65, 1St Floor Subhash Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Nr. Ram Chowk, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach5895F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

ITBA/COM/F/17/2022- 23/1050992059(l) dated 20.03.2023 and was duly served upon the assessee, through e-proceedings and the assessee -company was provided an opportunity of being heard and to offer explanation, if any, as well as to adduce evidence, if any, against the proposal of revision ... 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

M/S Ashish Enterprises, Balangir vs. Income Tax Officer, Balangir Ward, Balangir

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

ITA 295/CTK/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.295/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Ashish Enterprises, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Balangir At/Po: Railway Station Road, Dist : Balangir-767001 Pan No. :Aalfa 6815 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri Himanshu Jena, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 30.06.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054066280(1) For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Without Giving Sufficient Opportunity Being Heard To The Assessee, Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte. It Was Also The Submission That Both The Authorities Below Have Not Considered The Explanation Submitted By The Assessee In The Form Of Statement Of Facts & Grounds Of Appeal. 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.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.MishraFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, 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

Suresh Kumar Tanwani, Balangir vs. Income Tax Officer, Balangir Ward, Balangir

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

ITA 294/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.294/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Suresh Kumar Tanwani Vs Ito, Balangir Ward, Balangir C/O Tanwani Rice Mill, At: Railway Station Road, Po/Dist : Balangir-767001 Pan No. :Aavpt 0712 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri Himanshu Jena, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27.10.2022, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1046486431(1) For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Without Giving Sufficient Opportunity Being Heard To The Assessee, Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte. It Was Also The Submission That Both The Authorities Below Have Not Considered The Explanation Submitted By The Assessee In The Form Of Statement Of Facts & Grounds Of Appeal. 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.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.MishraFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Rohinton Homi Sanga, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1292/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerohinton Homi Sanga V. Dcit – Central Circle – 7(1) Room No. 6, 1St Floor Room No. 653, 6Th Floor 36 Mistry Building, Sunmill Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Mumbai – 400020 Pan: Agtps1061N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153

following amongst other grounds which are without prejudice to one another: i) The CIT(A) has not given to the Appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard as the CIT(A) has not granted the Appellant personal hearing in the matter even though a specific request to that effect was made

Raji Ram Jat, Sriganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

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

ITA 130/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. T. C. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Laxman Singh Gurjar, Sr. DR

Section 69Section 69A

saving bank A/c which has been ignored by the AO while rejecting the explanation submitted by the appellant assessee. In our view, opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the appellant by the Assessing Officer in view of principles of natural justice. Further, the assessee being ... agriculturist, and a small contractor, he should get afresh opportunity of being heard before the Assessing Officer to file the requisite details in support of its claim to explain the said disputed cash deposits as computed as peak cash deposit by the AO. Accordingly, we consider it deem

Ravinder Chaudhary, Mount Abu vs. ITO, Mount Abu

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

ITA 100/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. T. C. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Laxman Singh Gurjar, Sr. DR

Section 116Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 200ASection 206C

pleaded that the order passed u/s 154 by the AO is deserves to be quashed on account of denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and case was wrongly taken under compulsory scrutiny. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the impugned order and contended that under ... provisions of law, the AO has allowed such reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant under the order passed u/s 154 but “there are no mistakes apparent from the record” he pleaded that the impugned order may be sustained. 4. Heard both the sides, perused record and the impugned

Voluntary Medcare Society, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer ( Exemptions) Ward, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 262/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

benefit should not be infringed u/s. 11 of the Act. Needless to say, that the ld. AO shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanation submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted by the ld. AO and adjudicated

Shri Akshay Kumar, Pathankot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 6 (1), Pathankot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 204/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.204/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 144Section 148Section 250oSection 44A

Assessing Officer are both against the facts of this case and are untenable under the law. 2. That no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by the Assessing Officer before making the addition of Rs.66,40,500/-. As such the order passed ... objection for remanding back the issue before the ld. AO. Needless to say, that the AO shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanation submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted by the AO and adjudicated on merits

Fr. Sauter Ag, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward International Tax 1(3)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

ITA 831/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13]

Section 112Section 234ASection 234BSection 48

case, the appellant does not fulfill any of the conditions specified in Rule 46A as the assessee had been given enough opportunity of being heard and was not prevented by any sufficient cause to produce the evidence during the assessment proceeding. The AO has contended that the assessee was given ... reopening of the assessment are also set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Grounds raised in this Appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. Therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside

Harbans Lal Chadha, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 699/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Harbans Lal Chadha V Ito House No. 324, Dr. Mukherjee S Ward-35(4) Nagar, North West Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpc8190M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Adv Respondent By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2023 Date Of 22.11.2023 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

case. 4. That the orders passed by both the authorities below remained arbitrary and of a nature of surmise remained without enough opportunity of being heard. 5. That the appellant is Super Senior Citizen which deserves justice in favor from this Hon'ble Court in view of the merits

Vessel Warehousing Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 519/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 270A

comparables for fresh determination of ALP in respect of interest payments on FCCDs and NCCDs. 19. The TPO shall give reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee shall assist the Assessing Officer/TPO in finding suitable comparables. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes ... directed to allow set off of brought forward business loss of earlier years as per the provisions of law and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 22. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No. 519/DEL/2022 is allowed for statistical purposes. The order

Sac Finance Comany Ltd, Hong Kong vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2336/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 48Section 92C

Limited (Orbgen"); b) to compute capital gains income in accordance with the provisions of section 48 of the Act and c) allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in rejecting