← 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

Suresh Productions, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 641/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 641/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Suresh Productions, Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Vs. [Pan No. Aajfs7306J] Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Suresh Productions (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Assessee Preferred This Appeal With A Delay Of One Day. Learned Ar Explained That The Delay Is Due To Calculation Error. Heard Learned Dr. Delay Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

order dated 13/04/2023. 8. With this view of the matter, we do not find anything illegality or irregularity in the finding of the well reasoned order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by assessee. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced

Deep Additives Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3) Previously Ward- 1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 929/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 929/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Deep Additives Private Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Limited Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. 39/40, Nagarwel Ind. [Previously Ward-1(1)(4)) Estate, Nagarwel Hanuman Ahmedabad Road, Rakhial, Ahmedabad 380023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakcs7792Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) None अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C S Sharma, Sr. Dr 19 & 26/02/2024 Date Of Hearing 27/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.08.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2014-15. Ita No. 929/Ahd/2023 (Deep Additives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito) A.Y.– 2014-15 - 2 – 2. None For The Appellant Appeared Before Us At The Time Of Hearing Of The Matter.

For Respondent: Shri C S Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

heard to the assessee and hence setting aside the issue to the file of Ld. AO with a direction upon him to pass a reasoned order upon granting opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on records or any other evidence which the assessee

Parth Pragati Mandal, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO(Exemption), Palanpur

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 882/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 882/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Parth Pragati Mandal The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 19, Umiya Parivar Society, (Exemption) Vs. Valasana Road, Idar, Palanpur Sabarkantha – 383430, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtp4353N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tej Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C S Sharma, Sr. Dr 21/02/2024 Date Of Hearing 23/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 13.09.2021 Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Raising A Demand Of Rs.2,30,409/- For Assessment Year 2018-19, Whereby & Whereunder The Appeal Filed By The

For Respondent: Shri C S Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80G(5)

which the appellant may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. The ld. AO, is, therefore, directed to pass a reasoned order complying all the formalities indicated hereinabove. 6. In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Surendra Reddy Chirla, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 792/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.791/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.792/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit Shri Surendra Reddy Chirla बनाम Central Circle-2(2) No.4, Ii Cross Street, Chennai-34. Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpr-3181-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024

For Appellant: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.AR
Section 269SSection 271(1)Section 271DSection 271E

levied if AO failed to record such satisfaction in the assessment order. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order deleting the impugned penalty. We confirm the same. 9. The material facts as well as issue, in the other three appeals, are identical. Therefore

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Surendra Reddy Chirla, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 791/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.791/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.792/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit Shri Surendra Reddy Chirla बनाम Central Circle-2(2) No.4, Ii Cross Street, Chennai-34. Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpr-3181-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024

For Appellant: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.AR
Section 269SSection 271(1)Section 271DSection 271E

levied if AO failed to record such satisfaction in the assessment order. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order deleting the impugned penalty. We confirm the same. 9. The material facts as well as issue, in the other three appeals, are identical. Therefore

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Surendra Reddy Chirla, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 790/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.791/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.792/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit Shri Surendra Reddy Chirla बनाम Central Circle-2(2) No.4, Ii Cross Street, Chennai-34. Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpr-3181-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024

For Appellant: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.AR
Section 269SSection 271(1)Section 271DSection 271E

levied if AO failed to record such satisfaction in the assessment order. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order deleting the impugned penalty. We confirm the same. 9. The material facts as well as issue, in the other three appeals, are identical. Therefore

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Surendra Reddy Chirla, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 789/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.791/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.792/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit Shri Surendra Reddy Chirla बनाम Central Circle-2(2) No.4, Ii Cross Street, Chennai-34. Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, / Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpr-3181-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V.Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld.Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024

For Appellant: Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.AR
Section 269SSection 271(1)Section 271DSection 271E

levied if AO failed to record such satisfaction in the assessment order. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order deleting the impugned penalty. We confirm the same. 9. The material facts as well as issue, in the other three appeals, are identical. Therefore