Kranthi Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan

9 SCC 496Supreme Court of India2010#5960 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43CASection 68

Issues it is cited on

section 43castrategic investmentsection 36(2)interest free advancestransfer of capital assetsection 10(34)source of sourcebusiness expediencycreditworthiness of the creditorenduring benefitmiscellaneous applicationsection 36(1)(iii)

Judgments citing Kranthi Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan

GANPATI INFRASTUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1,, AGRA

ITA 99/AGR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

…judgment. Absence of analysis not only evinces non-application of mind but mummifies the core spirit of the order. (U. Manjunath Rao v. U Chandrashekhar, 2017 (6) Supreme 19). 12. In M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the requirement of passing a reasoned order by an authority whether administrative, quasi judicial or judicial has, vide para 51 laid down the following propositions : “a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejud…

RAM PARSAD DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY,MARKANDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, AMBALA

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

ITA 752/CHANDI/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…nd misapplied the law, resulting in an arbitrary determination of the assessed income at Rs.23,50,119/- without adequate justification, in violation of the principles of natural justice as upheld in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan [(2010) 9 SCC 496 (SC)]. It was also pointed out that the CIT(A) failed to properly adjudicate the assessee’s grievances, thereby rendering the appellate process defective. Accordingly, the assessee seeks annulment of the impugned order, consequential relief, liberty to amend the grounds of appeal, and a fair adjudication in accordance with law. 9. We have heard th…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOHINOOR PLANET CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1495/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

…confirmation letter and bank statement of Yashoda Nookaratnam. Thus, reasons have not been given for not accepting the defence of the petitioner. The reasons are held to be heartbeat of conclusions. In Kranthi Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Supreme Court has emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial orders and held as under: "47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A qu…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOHINOOR PLANET CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1493/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

…confirmation letter and bank statement of Yashoda Nookaratnam. Thus, reasons have not been given for not accepting the defence of the petitioner. The reasons are held to be heartbeat of conclusions. In Kranthi Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Supreme Court has emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial orders and held as under: "47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A qu…

KOHINOOR PLANET CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1159/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

…confirmation letter and bank statement of Yashoda Nookaratnam. Thus, reasons have not been given for not accepting the defence of the petitioner. The reasons are held to be heartbeat of conclusions. In Kranthi Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Supreme Court has emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial orders and held as under: "47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A qu…

KOHINOOR PLANET CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1158/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

…confirmation letter and bank statement of Yashoda Nookaratnam. Thus, reasons have not been given for not accepting the defence of the petitioner. The reasons are held to be heartbeat of conclusions. In Kranthi Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Supreme Court has emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial orders and held as under: "47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A qu…

SANDEEP KUMAR SANSERWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO WARD-4, YAMUNAGAR

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 527/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…e thus an unreasonable action prayed to be deleted. 6. Because the CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the assessment order without passing a speaking & reasoned order, thus in violation to Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd and another vs Sh Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496. 7. Because the action of dismissing the appeal is being challenged facts & law by recording, finding dehors the material on record & without giving opportunity for producing the sales invoices which are available with the assessee & can be produced before the Tribunal. 8. For any consequential relief and/or legal claim arising out of this appeal a…

M/S. DELTA DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1842/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…ubmitted in response to Notice u/s 142(1), U/s 133(6) and Summon u/s 131, hence, is vitiated and nullity in the eye of law. 3.2. The ld. AR further contended that in the case of Kranti Associates Put. Ltd, Vs. Masood Ahmed Khand and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia that a quasi judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions to demonstrate by reasons that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. 3.3. He further stated that the addition of share capital/premium u/s 68 is based on assumption and without any evidence or enquir…

ATUL AHUJA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

Accordingly, ground no. 2 is allowed for

ITA 2858/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 44A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER assessment Year: 2020-21 Atul Ahuja, Vs DCIT Circle-1, Plot No. 90, Sector-59, Faridabad. HSIDC, Faridabad-121004. PAN- ABFPA8915Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Rakesh Jain, Adv. Department represented by Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of hearing 28.08.2023 Date of pronouncement 22.09.2023 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Nation…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. SHRI SUBHASH HASTIMAL LODHA,, PUNE

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

ITA 750/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri B. C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 54B

…pensable component of a decision making process. A non- speaking and non-reasoned order smacks arbitrary exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial or even administrative power. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kranti Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan [2010] 9 SCC 496 while dealing with the requirement of passing a reasoned order by an authority whether administrative, quasi judicial or judicial, had laid down as under:— '51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prej…

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

WA/200056/2021HC Karnataka22 Dec 2022

Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR,K S HEMALEKHA

Section 4

…s - (1998) 8 SCC 1; j) R.L. Jain v DDA - (2004) 4 SCC 79; k) Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co v. Union of India - (1976) 2 SCC 981; l) Manohar v. State of Maharashtra - (2012) 13 SCC 14; m) Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan - (2010) 9 SCC 496; n) Anjebhau v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 Mh. L.J. 1414; o) Shri Lachoo Mal Vs. Shri Radhey Shyam - (1971) 1 SCC 619; p) Commissioner of Customs, Bombay vs. Virgo Steels, Bombay and Ors -(2002) 4 SCC 316; q) The Director of Inspection of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi and Ors. vs. Pooran Mal and Sons - (1975) 4 SCC 568; r) K…

ACIT CIRCLE-2, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S SHERWANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LTD., ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 227/ALLD/2016[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad24 Dec 2021AY 1997-98

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 1997-98 The Assistant Commissioner Of V. M/S Shervani Sugar Syndicate Income-Tax, Circle-2, Ltd., Allahabad, U.P. 28, South Road , Allahabad,U.P. Pan/Gir: 19-653-Cv-3480 New Pan: Not Available (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Bansal Adv
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…irrelevant and extraneous material and evidences weigh in the mind of ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating an issue before it. Reference is drawn to decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. – (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering number of judgments summarized at para 51 the law on the point , which is reproduced hereunder: “51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. b…

AMRUTLAL GANGAJI CHOUDHARY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

ITA 1343/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan
Section 131Section 68

…of natural justice. Recording of reasons for the conclusions reached by an authority is a part and parcel of the principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 while dealing with the requirement of passing a reasoned order by an authority whether administrative, quasi judicial or judicial, had laid down as under:- “51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone pr…

SHRI ACHAL JAIN,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. ITO, W-2, MANDI GOBINDGARH

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

ITA 1038/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Addressing The Specific Facts Of The Present Case, It Is Noticed That The Assessee'S Appeal Was Earlier Dismissed By The Itat For Non- Representation Vide Order Dated 27.11.2017. Subsequently, Vide Order Dated 29.08.2018 In M.A. 44/Chd/2018, Satisfied By The Explanation Of The Assessee For Remaining Unrepresented, The Aforesaid Order Of Dismissal Was Recalled. In The Said Background, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Inviting

For Appellant: Shri Navdeep MongaFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

…ntioning that no intervention is called for with the finding given in the assessment order. Reliance is placed upon in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Shri Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496.” 2. Before addressing the specific facts of the present case, it is noticed that the assessee's appeal was earlier dismissed by the ITAT for non- representation vide order dated 27.11.2017. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.08.2018 in M.A. 44/CHD/2018, satisfied by the explanation of the assessee for remaining unrepresented, the aforesaid order of…

HI-TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS (P),BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 249/CTK/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.235&236/Ctk/2012 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar Vs. Hi-Tech Estates & Promoters (P) Ltd. A/170, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaach 9591 G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.249&250/Ctk/2012 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Hi-Tech Estates & Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2), Promoters (P) Ltd. A/170, Bhubaneswar Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaach 9591 G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, Citdr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.D.Ojha, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-Ii, Bhubaneswar All Dated 01.02.2012 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. Since The Issue & Facts Involved In These Appeals Are Interconnected, Therefore, They Are Being Heard & Disposed Off Together As Under. 3. In Assessee’S Appeal Grounds No.2 In The Assessment Year 2007- 08 & Ground No.2 In The Assessment Year 2008-09 Are Directed Against

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR
Section 132

…as stated above on estimate basis lacks cogent, clear and succinct reasons, it is liable to be quashed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Sh. Masood Ahemed Khan and Ors reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. 7.7 In view of the above, I find no merit in these additions for the detailed reasons given above. Accordingly, addition of Rs.1,22,245/- being incentive expenses, Rs.2,78,912/- being miscellaneous expenses and Rs.3,72,737/- being sales promotion expenses are deleted and Grounds No.4, 5 and 6 of the appeal are allowed. 15.4 For the same reasonings…

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. HI-TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS (P) LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 236/CTK/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.235&236/Ctk/2012 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar Vs. Hi-Tech Estates & Promoters (P) Ltd. A/170, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaach 9591 G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.249&250/Ctk/2012 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Hi-Tech Estates & Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2), Promoters (P) Ltd. A/170, Bhubaneswar Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaach 9591 G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, Citdr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.D.Ojha, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-Ii, Bhubaneswar All Dated 01.02.2012 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. Since The Issue & Facts Involved In These Appeals Are Interconnected, Therefore, They Are Being Heard & Disposed Off Together As Under. 3. In Assessee’S Appeal Grounds No.2 In The Assessment Year 2007- 08 & Ground No.2 In The Assessment Year 2008-09 Are Directed Against

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR
Section 132

…as stated above on estimate basis lacks cogent, clear and succinct reasons, it is liable to be quashed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Sh. Masood Ahemed Khan and Ors reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. 7.7 In view of the above, I find no merit in these additions for the detailed reasons given above. Accordingly, addition of Rs.1,22,245/- being incentive expenses, Rs.2,78,912/- being miscellaneous expenses and Rs.3,72,737/- being sales promotion expenses are deleted and Grounds No.4, 5 and 6 of the appeal are allowed. 15.4 For the same reasonings…

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. RAJDHANI SYSTEMS & ESTATES (P) LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 232/CTK/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.232&233/Ctk/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar Vs. Rajdhani Systems &Estates (P) Ltd., A/170, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr 8271 L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.253&254/Ctk/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Rajdhani Systems &Estates Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2), (P) Ltd., A/170, Sahid Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabcr 8271 L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, Citdr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.D.Ojha, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-Ii, Bhubaneswar All Dated 01.02.2012 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. Since The Issue & Facts Involved In These Appeals Are Interconnected, Therefore, They Are Being Heard & Disposed Off Together As Under.

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR
Section 132

…as stated above on estimate basis lacks cogent, clear and succinct reasons, it is liable to be quashed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Sh. Masood Ahemed Khan and Ors reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. 7.7 In view of the above, I find no merit in these additions for the detailed reasons given above. Accordingly, addition of Rs.9,68,540/- Being incentive expenses, Rs.1,59,875/- being miscellaneous expenses and Rs.15,99,285/- being sales promotion expenses are deleted and Grounds No.4, 5 and 6 of the appeal are allowed. 15.4 For the same reasoning…

ITO, ERODE vs. HEALTHCARE GLOBAL SENTHIL MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITALS (P) LTD., BANGALORE

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

ITA 1144/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.M.S.Nethrapal, JCIT,DRFor Respondent: Mr.Rajesh Babu Jaiswal, C.A

…CIT(A) cannot be sustained. ITA No.1144/Mds./2014 :- 3 -: 4.1 In our opinion, the Ld.CIT(A) being the quasi judicial authority should have passed a reasoned order as held by Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates P.Ltd Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan [2010] 9 SCC 496 which statutorily requires recording of reasons and requirement of passing a reasoned order by an authority whether administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial, had laid down as under:- (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judi…

SICAL IRON ORE TERMINAL (MANGALORE) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1798/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1798/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ravi, IRS, JCIT

…ned speaking order after examined the entire facts of the case. In our opinion, the Ld.CIT(A) being the quasi judicial authority should have passed a reasoned order as held by Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates P.Ltd Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan [2010] 9 SCC 496 which statutorily requires recording of reasons and requirement of passing a reasoned order by an authority whether administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial, had laid down as under:- (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-j…

M/S UNITECH LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5180/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Unitech Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, 6-Community Centre, Range-18, Saket, New Delhi-1100 17 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Additional Cit, Vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., Range-18, 6-Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam And, Ca & Shjalesh Gupta, Ca Department By: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia, Government Standing Counsels Date Of Hearing : 12 .01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 :04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:These Cross Appeals Preferred By Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Xxi, New Delhi Dated 16.8.2013 & Relate To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant-Assessee Is A Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate Projects. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, It Filed A Return Declaring An Income Of Rs. 922,30,17,671/- On 29.9.2009, Which Came To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs. 3361,18,87,560/- In An Order Dated 1.8.2012 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. On Appeal, Learned Cit(A) Granted Part Relief To The Appellant & Hence The Appeals Before Us.

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam and, CA and Shjalesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48

…ainable, since recording of reason is meant to serve the under principle, that justice must not only be done but it must also appear to have been done i) Bal Kishan Dhawan (HUF) v UOI 366 ITR 639 (P&H) ii) Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 (SC) Proposition 3: Order u/s 142(2A) without giving an opportunity of being heard is invalid order, since detailed replies submitted by assessee were not considered as not further enquiries or explanations were sought for. Part – I; Section 142(2A) i) Kaka Carpets v ACIT 224 Taxman 335 (All) ii) Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction (P) L…