“reasoned order”

Natural JusticeReasoned OrderReasoned Order2,067 judgments

THE SIMALIYA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

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

ITA 2442/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 270ASection 69C

violation of the mandate under section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal through a reasoned order on each ground of appeal, irrespective of the appellant's absence or non-compliance. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC failed

WISDOM EDUCATION TRUST(R),MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSURU

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

ITA 2501/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri KR Vasudevan & Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

settled position that the Ld. CIT(A), being a quasi-judicial authority, is required to adjudicate the issues on merits and pass a reasoned order. Even in cases of non-compliance, the appeal should not be dismissed in limine without dealing with the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering

WISDOM EDUCATION TRUST (R),MYSURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS , MYSURU

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

ITA 2029/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri KR Vasudevan & Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

ITA 5011/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194ISection 234FSection 250

further clarified that dismissal of special leave petitions against contrary High Court decisions does not amount to declaration of law under Article 141 unless reasoned orders are passed. It therefore maintained the view that concurrent jurisdiction continues to operate within the statutory framework. 31. In T.K.S. Builders

S.S. INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 817/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 816 & 817/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) S.S. Industries, Plot No.610, 611, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 620, 621, Urla Industrial Area, Village- Tax, Central Circle 1, Raipur, Central Accholi, Distt.-Raipur, C.G.-492003 Revenue Building, Raipur, C. G. Pan: Aclfs9015L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raghunath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 20/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)Section 69C

orders though he, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his consideration. 7. It is evident from the perusal of section

S.S. INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 816/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 250(6)Section 69C

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. RAJAT SUREKA, INDORE

The appeal is allowed

ITA 426/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Dcit 4(1), Rajat Sureka, Indore D-41, Hig Colony, बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aksps7189J Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Chandra, Ar Date Of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

Jayant Securities and Finance Pvt. Ltd.” was not genuine, it was an accommodation obtained by assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order reversing the action of AO. In coming to his conclusion, the Ld. CIT(A) has made a careful analysis of the factual matrix

DEEPANSHU SRIVASTAVA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4064/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144B

either incorrect or untenable\nas the AO -as provided adequate opportunity to be heard to the appellant\nand then gone ahead with a reasoned order. The appellant failed to furnish\nsuch necessary documents, evidence and satisfactory submissions before\nthe AO during the assessment proceedings, the AO had to therefore reject

DEEPANSHU SRIVASTAVA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4063/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), DELHI vs. PASHUPATI ROAD CARRIER PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

ITA 2490/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumardcit, Circle 19(1), Vs. Pashupati Road Carrier Delhi Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 70A/47, Ground C.R. Building, Floor, Moti Nagar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110 002 Rama Road Indl. Area, New Delhi – 110 045 (Pan: Aadcp8319H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Baldev Raj, Ca & Sh. Manish Upneja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2026 Date Of Order : 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

For Appellant: Sh. Baldev Raj, CA & Sh. Manish UpnejaFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

aforesaid facts and circumstances, and binding precedents, as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well, reasoned order, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same and accordingly, reject the ground raised by the Revenue

MANOJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 44 (6) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 164/DEL/2026[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2026

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

submits that the appeal should have been decided on merits. The Learned authorized representative for Department of Revenue submitted that departmental authorities have passed reasoned orders. He also submitted that the assessee has not taken part in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was rightly rejected

DEEPANSHU,. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 46(5), DELHI, .

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 4640/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144

NFAC dismissed\nthe appeal for non -prosecution. The Learned authorized\nrepresentative for Department of Revenue submitted that\nLd. NFAC has passed the reasoned order. The assessee is\nnon co-operative and he did not furnished the details as\nasked by the AO. The appeal was rightly dismissed

HOME CREDIT INTERNATIONAL A.S.,CZECH REPUBLIC vs. ASSISTANTDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3846/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 282

order issued by the DRP is illegal and void-ab- initio to the extent it directs the AO to pass a speaking and reasoned order without appreciating that in terms of Section 144C(8) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the "Act"), the DRP could not have set-aside ... Assessing Officer, a specific direction was issued to the Assessing Officer to consider assessee's argument and complete the assessment by a speaking and reasoned order. However, a careful reading of final assessment order would make it clear that the Assessing Officer has done precious little to implement the directions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. M/S SENTHIL MURUGAN JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1557/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1557/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S.Senthil Murugan Jewellers Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-1, Madurai. 106-108, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai – 625001 Pan: Aajcs8546F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Mr. M.K.Rangasamy – Ca Revenue By Mr. S. Senthil Kumaran – Cit Date Of Hearing 26/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Chennai-19 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 20.03.2025. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts & In Law

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

based on proper appreciation of facts of the claim made by the Assessee and the Law. The ld.CIT(A) had passed a speaking and reasoned order and requires no interference by this Tribunal. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue

EKKI KRISHNAMURTHY HUF,PUTTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/BANG/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250

required to examine the assessment order, the grounds of appeal and the materials available on record and thereafter pass a reasoned order on merits. The dismissal of an appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee defeats the very purpose of the appellate mechanism provided under

VISHWANATH GUPTA, MANENDRAGARH,MANENDRAGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BILASPUR, BILASPUR

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

ITA 786/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yash Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 250Section 254

appellant assessee by the Authorities below. However, the appellant assessee tactfully ensured noncompliance to avoid investigations. Hence, the Authorities below passed well-reasoned orders based on their records. She, therefore prayed for dismissing the appeal and upholding impugned order. 9. We have heard both parties and have perused the material ... find force in the arguments/contention of the Ld. AR. Further, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal with well-reasoned order. We take note of the fact that the assessee has made non-compliance consistently before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the facts

VICKY AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS & SUPPLIERS PVT LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD-8(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 9158/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarvicky Agro Food Ito-8(3)(3), Products & Suppliers Room No. 616, 6Th Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 125/129, Central M. K. Road, Warehousing Churchgate, Mumbai- Corporation Building 400020 Reay Road (East), Mumbai-400 033 Pan/Gir No. Aadcv3351K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kiran Mehta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

consonance with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act which requires the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal by passing a reasoned order stating the points for determination and the decision thereon. 20. It is well settled that procedural irregularities should not defeat the cause of substantive

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI DEEPAK MOHANLAL PURSWANI, RAJKOT

ITA 665/RJT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. SR. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

expenditures which were not recorded in the books.\nThose expenditure must have been made from this on-money. Therefore, after\ngoing through the well-reasoned order of the Ld.CIT(A), IT(SS)A No.289\nAhd/2018 (7 Others) Greenfield Reality P. Ld. Vs. DCIT and in the light of\njudgment

MR. SHRIDHAR GANGARAM ANUMANDALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8391/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (Sr. DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 50Section 55ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

Shridhar Gangaram Anumandala file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the plea of the assessee and pass a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the set-aside appellate proceedings

AJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 35(5), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2691/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 250

being heard was not provided by the lower\nauthorities. The Learned authorized representative for\nDepartment of Revenue submitted that departmental\nauthorities have passed reasoned orders. He also submitted\nthat the assessee has not taken part in the proceedings\nbefore the\nlower authorities. The appeal was rightly\nrejected

Showing 1–20 of 2,067 · Page 1 of 104

...