Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. v. JCIT

74 ITD 339Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#10731 most cited

What is Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. v. JCIT authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) must pass a speaking order that addresses the points raised in the appeal and provides reasons for the decision, as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. · 74 ITD 339 · Section 250(6) · speaking order · CIT(A) · appeal · reasons for decision · judicial pronouncement · non-speaking order

Judgments citing Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. v. JCIT

Mohita Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 232/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Him & As Such, Same Is Unsustainable In Law & Liable To Be Set Aside.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

…ght to have decided appeal on merits instead of dismissing the appeal for non-attendance. 4. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the judicial pronouncement of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. reported in 74 ITD 339, wherein it has been held that, section 250(6) is obligatory for CIT (A) and thus CIT (A) should pass a speaking order stating points raised in appeal, his reasons thereon and reasons for such decisions. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the additions of Rs.7,25,000/- and treating the same as…

Curia India Private Limited(After Merger Amri India Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. ACIT Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Ananaya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…nce in the instant case, he has passed a very cryptic order, the same should be set aside to his file for passing a detailed speaking order. i. Fujitsu consulting India(P.) Ltd. vs ACIT [2019] 110 taxmann.com 172 ii. Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. vs. JCIT [200] 74 ITD 339(AHD) iii. Swati Pawa vs. DCIT [2019] 103 taxmann.com 300 iv. Aggarwal Multy Speciality Hospital vs. ITO [ITA No.9062/Del/2019] v. ITO vs. Charanbir Singh Oberoi [2010] 5 ITR (T) 251 (Delhi) vi. Kashi Vishwanath Steels pt.Ltd. vs ACIT [ITA No.2959/Del/2016) (ITAT, Delhi) vii. HHS India Pvt.Ltd. vs.ITO [ITA No.2700/Del/2012] (ITAT, Delhi) 9.1 She s…

P.P. Auto Innovators, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 36(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 80I

…f section 250(6) of the Act, as the order passed by him is non speaking and without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. That the Id Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) has ignored the judicial ruling in Gujrat Themis Biosyn Ltd. (74 ITD 339 Ahd. ITAT), wherein it was held that section 250(6) makes it obligatory for the Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) to pass a speaking order deciding the points raised in appeal, stating his reasons for the decision, as such. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) i…

M/S. Rajshree Builder & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 679/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 41(1)

…6) of the Act by dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex parte, thereby, violating the principles of natural justice. 2 ITA No. 679/Del./2017 2. That the Id. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) has ignored the judicial ruling in Gujrat Themis Biosyn Ltd. (74 ITD 339 Ahd. ITAT), wherein it was held that section 250(6) makes it obligatory for the Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) to pass a speaking order deciding the points raised in appeal, stating his reasons for the decision, as such. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is…

B.K.Jena & Associates, Jagatsinghpur vs. ITO, Paradeep Ward, Paradeep

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

ITA 182/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. M/S. B.K.Jena B.K.Jena & & Associates, Vs. Ito, Paradeep Ward, Paradeep. Ito, Paradeep Ward, Paradeep. Rangiagarh, Paradeep. Rangiagarh, Paradeep. Pan/Gir No. No.Aagfb 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, P.R.Mohanty, Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr Subhendu Dutta, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/07/ 201 / 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/0 07/ 2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 250(6)

…assessee. submission of ld A.R. of the assessee. 3. The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd vs. The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd vs. The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd vs. JCIT (2000) 74 ITD 339 (Ahd) has held that the provisions of section 250(6) JCIT (2000) 74 ITD 339 (Ahd) has held that the provisions of section 250(6) JCIT (2000) 74 ITD 339 (Ahd) has held that the provisions of section 250(6) are mandatory and it is obligatory for Commissioner(Appeals) to pass a are mandatory and it is obligatory for Commissioner(Appeals) to pass a ar…

M/S. Shree Ganesh Rice Mill, Khurda vs. ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda

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

ITA 383/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. No.34/Ctk/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 250(6)

…grounds i.e. the appeal was filed delay by 32 days and for non- prosecution following the decision of Delhi Bench in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del). 4. The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd vs. JCIT (2000) 74 ITD 339 (Ahd) has held that the provisions of section 250(6) are mandatory and it is obligatory for Commissioner(Appeals) to pass a speaking order stating points raised in appeals, his decision thereon and reasons for such decisions. The provisions of section 250(6) provides that the P a g e 2 | 3 ITA No 57/CT K/ 2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12 (supra…

Shri Bhupendra C. Patel, Anand vs. The Joint CIT, Anand Range, Anand

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in term and condition mentioned therein

ITA 2793/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar, Sr. D.R
Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

….P.) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. And at the outset, ld. A.R. cited an order of Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 74 ITD 339 (AHD.) wherein it is held that “it is mandatory and obligatory for Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to pass a speaking order stating points raised in appeal, his decision thereon and reasons for such decision.” 6. In this case, appellant has been in default for not appearing before the ld. CIT(A) despite of the fact that matter was fixed thri…

M/S. Ganpati Finsec Pvt. Ltd., Rajasthan vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2425/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…into consideration the basic requirements I.T.A .No.-2425/Del/2016 Ganpati FInsec Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT Page 5 of 6 germane to the issue [V.N. Purushothaman vs. Ag.ITO (1984) 149 ITR 120 (Ker.)]. (C.2.). In the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT 74 ITD 339 (Ahd), in similar circumstances, it was held as under: "3. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made before us. The impugned order passed by the CIT(A) is clearly violative of the express provisions of s. 250(6), which provides that the appellate orders of the CIT(A) are to state the points a…

Sachin Dattatraya Pote, Thane vs. ITO 3(4), Kalyan

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

ITA 986/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri C.N. Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Avinash ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Yadav, DR

…ing fixed before the CIT (A). (b) The Ld CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal exparte without considering the merits of the case and accordingly has taken a decision contrary to the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd vs. JCIT 74 ITD 339 (Hyd). 2. Without prejudice to ground nos. 1A and 1B above, on merits, the appellant prays that (a) The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 31,01,465/- to the returned income as long term capital gain arising in the hands of your appellant on sale of share in property at Vadgaon Sheri, Pune. (b) The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming th…

Hemal V.Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) -45 / ITO 33(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1678/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1678/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Hemal Mehta Income Tax Officer25(3)(2) बनाम/ 304, Charkop Suraksha Mumbai Vs. Co.Op Spc., Plot No.14, Rdp I/Ii, Section – 1, Kandivali (W), Mumbai - 400067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adrpm4657P

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri A. N. Sontakke
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 69C

…and is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of these contentions the learned representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax on 20th August 1999, 74 ITD 339, Ahmadabad. On the other hand the learned representative of the department has refuted the said contentions. Keeping in view of the argument advanced by the parties and perused the record carefully it came into notice that het CIT(A) has decided the appeal in question without the presence of the parties. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and…

Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. v. JCIT (74 ITD 339) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax