MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee

NIYAZ SEA FOODS ,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance of Rs.1,94,18,130/- u/s 41(1) as cessation of liability and thereby raised tax demand of Rs.1,76,67,975/-. Aggrieved by this addition made, assessee went in appeals before ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. Against this assessee once again is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.1018 & 1019/Bang/2024 Niyaz Sea Foods

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

natural justice and the order of the lower authorities prevails. 17. Before us, ld. A.R. is not able to substantiate how the opportunity of hearing has not been given to the assessee. Hence, this ground of appeal in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 is dismissed. 18. Ground Nos.5

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

natural justice and the order of the lower authorities prevails. 17. Before us, ld. A.R. is not able to substantiate how the opportunity of hearing has not been given to the assessee. Hence, this ground of appeal in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 is dismissed. 18. Ground Nos.5

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

natural justice and the order of the lower authorities prevails. 17. Before us, ld. A.R. is not able to substantiate how the opportunity of hearing has not been given to the assessee. Hence, this ground of appeal in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 is dismissed. 18. Ground Nos.5

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

natural justice and the order of the lower authorities prevails. 17. Before us, ld. A.R. is not able to substantiate how the opportunity of hearing has not been given to the assessee. Hence, this ground of appeal in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 is dismissed. 18. Ground Nos.5

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

natural justice and the order of the lower authorities prevails. 17. Before us, ld. A.R. is not able to substantiate how the opportunity of hearing has not been given to the assessee. Hence, this ground of appeal in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 is dismissed. 18. Ground Nos.5

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

natural justice and the order of the lower authorities prevails. 17. Before us, ld. A.R. is not able to substantiate how the opportunity of hearing has not been given to the assessee. Hence, this ground of appeal in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 is dismissed. 18. Ground Nos.5

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

natural justice and the order of the lower authorities prevails. 17. Before us, ld. A.R. is not able to substantiate how the opportunity of hearing has not been given to the assessee. Hence, this ground of appeal in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 is dismissed. 18. Ground Nos.5

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected.\nIt is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the\nstatements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed\nthe correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating\nAuthority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

natural justice which\nhave been from time to time used, but, whatever standard is\nadopted, one essential is that the person concerned should have\na reasonable opportunity of presenting his case.”\n[Emphasis supplied]\n33. Further, the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue that this\nmistake is curable under Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

natural justice and the\norder of the lower authorities prevails.\n17. Before us, ld. A.R. is not able to substantiate how the\nopportunity of hearing has not been given to the assessee. Hence,\nthis ground of appeal in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in\n assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 is dismissed.\n18. Ground Nos.5

MUTHYALA SURYABABU,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

disallowed. After examination of the assessment record, the ld. PCIT observed that this aspect of whether the impugned expenditure of “arrears of property tax” is eligible to be allowed as Muthyala Suryababu Page 3 of 8 cost of acquisition or cost of improvement had not been verified and examined during the assessment proceedings. In view of the clause

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

natural justice which\nhave been from time to time used, but, whatever standard is\nadopted, one essential is that the person concerned should have\na reasonable opportunity of presenting his case.”\n[Emphasis supplied]\n33.\nFurther, the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue that this\nmistake is curable under Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain

SHANTHA ALIAS SHANTHAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

natural justice. Consequently, the\nassessment order is illegal and deserves to be annulled.\nRequest for Relief: Considering the aforementioned grounds, your\nAppellant respectfully request the Honorable Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal to consider this appeal and provide appropriate relief by:\na. Setting aside the order passed by the Learned Commissioner\n(Appeals) and allowing the Appeal filed by your Appellant

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

justice which have been\nfrom time to time used, but, whatever standard is adopted, one\nessential is that the person concerned should have a reasonable\nopportunity of presenting his case.”\n[Emphasis supplied]\n33. Further, the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue that this\nmistake is curable under Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain\nlanguage

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

justice which have been\nfrom time to time used, but, whatever standard is adopted, one\nessential is that the person concerned should have a reasonable\nopportunity of presenting his case.”\n[Emphasis supplied]\n33. Further, the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue that this\nmistake is curable under Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain\nlanguage