← 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

DCIT, Circle-3, Darbhanga vs. M/S Trimurty Concern Pvt Ltd, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.144/Pat/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-3, Darbhanga…………………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. M/S Trimurti Concern Pvt. Ltd………………...........……........……...…..…..Respondent 74, Bengali Colony, Muzaffarpur- 842001. [Pan: Aadct0534G] C.O. No.05/Pat/2022 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.144/Pat/2019) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Trimurti Concern Pvt. Ltd ……………………………………….…..Cross-Objector 74, Bengali Colony, Muzaffarpur- 842001. [Pan: Aadct0534G] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Darbhanga............................................. …........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Jyoti, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Under Ita No.144/Pat/2019 Against The Order Dated 20.02.2019 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] & Additionally, The Assessee Has Filed Corresponding Cross-Objections In C.O No.05/Pat/2022 For Assessment Years 2014-15. I.T.A. No.144/Pat/2019 & C.O. No.05/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Trimurti Concern Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(2)

peculiarities of the business and the materials available on record. We note that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is a well-reasoned order considering the relevant aspects including the nature of transaction and limitations of documentation in transport business. However, the revenue authority raised concern about the genuineness