← 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

Divyeshkumar L.Kachhiya, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

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

ITA 1065/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Divyeshkumar L. The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Kachhiya Ward-1, Anand Vs. Bhat Pipli, Umreth, Anand Gujarat, 388220 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bqfpk5153G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. K. Patel, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/02/2024 14/02/2024 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 16.10.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 28.11.2018 Passed By The Ito, Ward-3, Anand, Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 3 Days. Considering The Merit Of The Matter, We Condone The Delay In Preferring Such Appeal Before Us.

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 147

admittedly an ex parte one. Upon perusal of the orders, it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has not finalized the matter by a reasoned order justifying the order passed by the Ld. AO while upholding the same. The appellant had also not been heard by the Revenue authorities ... aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for considering the issue afresh on merit and to pass a reasoned order upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose

Uday Autolink Private Limited, Galaxycomplex, Naroda, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Pratyakshakar Bhawan, L Colony, Ambawadi

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

ITA 935/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 935/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Uday Autolink Private Dcit बनाम/ Limited Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. F-14, Galaxy Complex, Opp. Galaxy Cinema, Naroda, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcu3260E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Parin S Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumr Katiar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2024 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 29.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Rejected The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Since The Appeal Was Barred By Limitation For 25 Days. Before Us, The Application For Condonation Of Delay Was Also Filed Which Was Also Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A). Upon Perusal Of The Same, We

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumr Katiar, Sr. DR
Section 250

hearing of the matter. Ld. CIT(A) is also directed to give further opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. 3. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced