← All Phrases

“reasoned order”

Natural JusticeReasoned OrderReasoned Order2,067 judgments

The decision most relied on for reasoned order is GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (259 ITR 19), cited in 1,349 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reasoned order

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co.
454 ITR 312 · 2023 · High Court
580
citing judgments

Approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is mandatory for assessment orders in search cases. While elaborate reasons for approval are not required, the approving authority must provide some indication that it has examined the draft orders and found them to meet the requirements of law.

CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd.
171 Taxmann 156 · 2008 · High Court
384
citing judgments

The assessment order must clearly specify the reason for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and explicitly state whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Failure to identify the specific limb under which penalty is initiated renders the penalty unsustainable.

V.M.Salgaocar & Bros.(P) Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 383 · 2000 · Supreme Court
189
citing judgments

An order by the Supreme Court dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute a declaration of law or a binding precedent. Such dismissal in limine offers no legal assistance.

Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
69 Taxmann.com 407 · 2016 · High Court
159
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution; the law does not empower them to do so. The appeal must be decided on merits and in writing, stating points for determination, decision, and reasons.

CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.
309 ITR 67 · 2009 · High Court
149
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous or prejudicial under Section 263 merely because it is silent on a claim or lacks explicit reasons for its acceptance. Revision under Section 263 is impermissible if the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view, even if the PCIT holds a different opinion.

PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra
279 CTR 614 · High Court
132
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is duty-bound to dispose of appeals on their merits, even when proceeding ex-parte. This requires framing points for determination, providing detailed reasoning for the decision, and affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as mandated by Section 250(6).

Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer Ward 2(3), Chennai
93 Taxmann.com 371 · 2018 · High Court
125
citing judgments

Failure by the Assessing Officer to supply reasons for reassessment or dispose of the assessee's objections, as required by the GKN Driveshafts procedure, is a procedural irregularity that does not render the reassessment order void. Such non-compliance can be cured by remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper adherence to the procedure.

Judgments citing reasoned order

Mount Carmel Educational Society, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 72/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mount Carmel Educational Society .......... Appellant Kanjiramkulam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695524 [Pan: Aabam3865A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Appellant By: Ms. Binisha Baby, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 30.121.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust Duly Registered U/S. 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 01.08.2017 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 Of The Act. The Said Return Of Income Was Processed By The Cpc U/S. 143(1) Of 2 Mount Carmel Educational Society The Act Vide Intimation Dated 25.03.2019 Denying Exemption U/S. 11 & Assessed The Total Income At Rs. 2,03,20,447/- On The Ground That Audit Report In The Prescribed Form 10B Was Not Filed Along With The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. 7. We ordered accordingly with direction to the CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order by meeting all the contentions raised by the appellant trust after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 8. In the result, the appeal filed