← 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

Sakku Devi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 271(1)(b)

assessee prayed that the AO has passed ex-parte assessment order dated 31- 10-2018 without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and further submitted that a penalty order dated 23- Sakku Devi vs. ITO 04-2019 was also passed by the AO, Ward 7(2), Jaipur

M/S. Maa Tarani Logistics Ltd, Joda vs. ACIT Cir.-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 140/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Maa Tarani Logistics M/S Maa Tarani Logistics Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Ltd., Unchabali, Unchabali, Po: Po: Cuttack Bamabri, Bamabri, Via Via- Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecm 7549 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 27.3.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051397448(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. S/Shri Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Reve Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & JaydeepFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 1aSection 234Section 68

submit that as per the provisions of section 127(1) and (2), the requirement of granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, wherever it is possible to do so is mandatory. It was the submission that the assessment order being passed by an officer other than the assessee ... original Assessing Officer, especially when the file has been transferred without granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard, makes the assessment order invalid. It was the further submission that in respect of notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act, a perusal of the assessment order clearly showed that

Candy Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward 6(2)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1358/MUM/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrym/S. Candy Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer- C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal 6(2)(1) Apartment, Taki Road Vs. Room No. 510, 5Th Floor Tulinj, Nallasopara (E) Ayakar Bhawan, M. K . Road, Thane 401209 Mumbai-400020 Pan – Aaacc2733M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ld. Ca Respondent By: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:21.08.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

learned CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh after giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 4. The learned Commissioner in compliance to the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal, started appeal proceedings and afforded various

Dy CIT-1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

M/S the Maharashtra State Co. Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3878/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

stock 2275 gms. You have not furnished any supporting evidence to substantiate your claim during the assessment proceedings. You are, therefore, given an opportunity of being heard and are requested to explain with documentary Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders evidences as to why the order passed

Sh. Sham Lal, Chandigarh vs. D.C.I.T, Central Circle, Amritsar

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

ITA 267/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245HSection 250Section 271Section 271A

filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the belated appeal. 4. That the worthy CIT(A) should have allowed an opportunity of being heard to the assessee for filing the belated appeal. The Learned Chandigarh Bench has taken this view that the CIT(A) must allow an opportunity

Tanisa Foundation, Gurgaon vs. CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 924/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaita Nos.924 & 923/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2023-24) Tanisa Foundation Vs. Cit (Exemption) Ca, M.R. Sahu, Chandigarh House No.651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Nr. G.D. Goenka Public School, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001 Pan No. Aaett 3089 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. R. Sahu, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.08.2023

Section 12ASection 80G

basic contention of the Learned Counsel for the assessee is that without providing reasonable ITA Nos.924 & 923/Del/2023 Tanisha Foundation vs. CIT(E) 2 opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the applications filed seeking registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 80G of the Act have been rejected ... Exemption) may be set aside and issues may be restored back to him for de novo adjudication after due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He further submitted, CIT (Exemption) may be directed to dispose of the applications in a time bound manner as the non grant

Tanisa Foundation, Gurgaon vs. CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 923/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaita Nos.924 & 923/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2023-24) Tanisa Foundation Vs. Cit (Exemption) Ca, M.R. Sahu, Chandigarh House No.651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Nr. G.D. Goenka Public School, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001 Pan No. Aaett 3089 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. R. Sahu, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.08.2023

Section 12ASection 80G

basic contention of the Learned Counsel for the assessee is that without providing reasonable ITA Nos.924 & 923/Del/2023 Tanisha Foundation vs. CIT(E) 2 opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the applications filed seeking registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 80G of the Act have been rejected ... Exemption) may be set aside and issues may be restored back to him for de novo adjudication after due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He further submitted, CIT (Exemption) may be directed to dispose of the applications in a time bound manner as the non grant

Shree Adinath Minority Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 42/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) as well as interest of Rs.19,88,77,712/- u/s 80P(2)(d) after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. The ld. AR submits that

Ramanaguli Group Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Ankola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 40/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) as well as interest of Rs.19,88,77,712/- u/s 80P(2)(d) after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. The ld. AR submits that

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Kadatoka vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 117/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) as well as interest of Rs.19,88,77,712/- u/s 80P(2)(d) after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. The ld. AR submits that

Directorate of Health Services Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Panaji

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 115/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) as well as interest of Rs.19,88,77,712/- u/s 80P(2)(d) after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. The ld. AR submits that

Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Nyt, Ingali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 113/PAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) as well as interest of Rs.19,88,77,712/- u/s 80P(2)(d) after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. The ld. AR submits that

Saroj Gopal Educational Society, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption (Ward-2), Raipur

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

ITA 19/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Saroj Gopal Educational Society, 137, New Civic Centre, Bhilai Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan: Aadas6074L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154

expenditure account, i.e. to the extent the same are allowable under the Act. Needless to say, the A.O shall grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the course of set-aside proceedings.” 13. Adopting a similar view, we herein, on similar lines, restore the case

Institute Management Committee of Iti, Narayanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ememption-I, Raipur

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

ITA 27/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Institute Management Committee, The Income Tax Officer- Women Iti, Narayanpur, (Exemption-1), Chhattisgarh-494 661. Ayakar Awasiya Parisar, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492 001. [Pan: Aaati 8583 L ] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.Dr : सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

sent lo the applicant: provided that no order under sub-clause (ii) shall he passed unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (IA) All applications, pending before the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner on which no order has been passed under clause ... institution: Provided that no order under this sub-section shall he passed unless such trust or institution has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause

Shri Jeevan Patel, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 200/IND/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Jeevan Patel Acit-2(1) Bicholi Maradan, Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Almppo 483B Assessee By None (Written Submission) Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2023

Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

interest of justice. Accordingly, enter assessment is set-aside to the file of the AO for denovo consideration after affording proper opportunity of being heard. Nevertheless, the assessee will cooperate in the enquiry and assessment and furnish necessary evidences as required by the Assessing Officer.” 5. Since the tribunal subsequently

M/S Isoft Health Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1210/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicomputer Sciences Dcit, Circle 11(4) Corporation India Private No. 14/3, 5Th Floor, R.P. Limited Bhawan Nrupathunga (Formerly Isoft Health Road Vs. Management (India) Pvt. Bangalore Ltd.) Unit-13, Block-2, Sdf Building Mpez Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaco 2465N Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 153(1)Section 92C

reference received from the Assessing Officer is dealt with expeditiously so as to leave the Assessing Officer with sufficient time to offer an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer before computing the income and completing the assessment. In order to ensure that all the references are attended to timely

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internationl Taxation)Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 919/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 27

issue a direction to the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee and allow in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. 18 BNP Paribas 18. Grounds 7 to 9 pertain to the levy of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D ... direction to the Assessing Officer to dispose of rectification petition filed by the assessee in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. These grounds are allowed for statistical purpose. 19. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/08/2023

Khalid Sayed, Delhi vs. Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore

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

ITA 706/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Akash KumarFor Respondent: Sh. S.N. Kabra, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 250Section 54

ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision and allow the claim of deduction of assessee in accordance with the law, after affording assessee opportunity of being heard. 6.4 We further observe that the Ld. Commissioner while declining the claim of the Assessee, also relied upon the judgment passed