← 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

Income Tax Officer Ward 51(1), Civic Centre vs. Aditi Gems N Jewellery, Karol Bagh Delhi

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

ITA 3748/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekito, Ward 51 (1), Vs. Aditi Gems N Jewellery, Delhi. 29/3250, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanfs3291Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Shri Satyjeet Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Order : 09.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 06.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Additions Of Rs.2,74,01,660/- Made By Ao U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Justified In Holding That The Evidence Collected By The Ao During The Assessment Proceeding Were Merely Conjecture & Surmise

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. We find that ld. CIT (A) has passed a reasonable order which is self- explanatory. The detailed findings of ld. CIT (A) have already been mentioned above. The crux of the ld. CIT (A)’s findings ... Jewellers as well as Delhi High Court in the case of Agson Global. 7. We find that ld. CIT (A) has passed a well-reasoned order which does not require any interference on our part. Hence, we uphold the same. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue