“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

Columbus Overseas LLP, 16, Raja Park, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

unit and considering the faceless assessment scheme being framed the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is nothing but a review of the reasoned order of the assessing officer. Observing only the defect which are not the defect in actual order is beyond the provisions of section ... discrepancies are apparent and the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the PCIT and therefore, the order of the PCIT is reasoned order and there is no submission to the contentions so raised by the assessee before the PCIT. Therefore, the provision of section

Parvatiya Plywood (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ward-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8120/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Supreme Court on the issue of eligibility of claim u/s 80 IB. The AO has held that as per section (8) of section 80lC, deduction is available to any undertaking enterprise in "Industrial Are" which is a notified area. The appellant has submitted that the Khasra number on which this plant is located has not been notified by the government of Uttarakhand/Uttarachal as a notified area. Against non-inclusion of Khasra number in the notification, the appellant has filed SLP in the Hon'ble Suprem

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

this background, assessee has rightly been held to be not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the well-reasoned order of ld. CIT (A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 24th

Mannu Bhatia, Uae vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 819/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Mannu Bhatia Vs. Acit, 1704, Mesk Tower, International Tax Al Marsa Road, Dubai Circle 1(1)(2) Marina, Dubai, Uae Pan : Afnpb4279A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 196A

verify the assessee's contention in light of Mannu Bhatia 6 submission including the assessee's rejoinder by passing a speaking and reasoned order vide its order dated 22.12.2022. 8. Thereafter Ld. AO held in the final assessment order as follows; “Thereby kindly note during the assessment proceedings, the assessee

Shalini Gupta, Germany vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

ITA 628/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmashalini Gupta Vs. Acit, Habsburger Str 7, Circle Int. Tax 1(3)(1) Duesseldorf 4057, New Delhi Germany 999999 Pan : Bnrpg7735F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 147Section 69

directed to consider and verify the assessee’s contention in light of submissions made as above before the Panel by passing a speaking and reasoned order within the ambit of law and facts of the case. The Panel hastens to clarify that the AO shall not conduct any fresh inquiry

DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 9377/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: him. 2.1 That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law in not giving a suitable direction to the AO follow the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Exide Industries Limited. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in neither admitting nor deciding the admissibility of claim of the appellant in respect of deduction of Rs.130.95 crore, pursuant to the order of the Apex Court dated 06/12/2018, being excess interest income offered for tax in the return of income by the ap

For Appellant: Shri Kamal K. Jaithley, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DR

Section 14A

before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 16. We find that the ld. CIT (A) has passed a well-reasoned order based on the Hon’ble Apex Court decision, hence we do not find any infirmity in the same. Therefore, the Revenue’s appeal

The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 8817/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kamal K. Jaithley, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DR

Section 14A

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon vs. Noni Farms P.Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT

ITA 6973/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: the date of utilization and the onus to prove it, is on the person who is claiming the benefit and not on the Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(iv)

made de hors any reference of incriminating material found during search. The deletion on merits by ld. CIT (A) is also by a well reasoned order. Hence, we affirm the same also.” 8. We find that the facts in the present case are similar. Hence, following the aforesaid order

Showtime Events India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4239/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Raghvendra Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

cannot be said to be either incompetent or otherwise improper to call for interference by a writ court. The Assessing Officer has in the reasoned order passed by him indicated the basis on which income exigible to tax had in his opinion escaped assessment. The argument that the proposed reopening

M/S. Maa Tarani Logistics Ltd, Joda vs. ACIT Cir.-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 140/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Maa Tarani Logistics M/S Maa Tarani Logistics Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Ltd., Unchabali, Unchabali, Po: Po: Cuttack Bamabri, Bamabri, Via Via- Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecm 7549 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 27.3.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051397448(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. S/Shri Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Reve Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & JaydeepFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 1aSection 234Section 68

been taken without providing an opportunity of being heard. The authorities have taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and passed a well reasoned order showing the reason that due to the policy decision of re-structuring of the Income Tax Department in the area concerned, the decision

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 784/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Citicorp Trustee Company बिधम/ Dcit (International Ltd. As Trustee For Fccb Taxation)-2(1)(1) Vs. Issued By Jindal Saw Ltd. 17Th Floor, 1713, Air India Citigroup Centre, Canada Building, Nariman Point, Square, Canary Wharf Mumbai-400021. London E14 5Lb United Kingdom. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc0452D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anish Thackar/Nikhil Tiwari/Lekh Mehta Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 19.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice The Ground No. 2 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Essential Condition Prescribed Under The Act; & Therefore Contends That The Action Of The Ao Is Ab-Initio-Void. 3. In Order To Examine The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee, It Is Necessary To Look Into The Reasons Recorded By Ao To Reopen The Assessment Which Is Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thackar/NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 6

consonance with the legal position discussed above. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is just, proper and reasoned order. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with order of the ld. CIT(A). 12 A.Y. 2014-15 Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd. 15. In the result

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

settled law that while making assessment on assessee, the ITO acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Therefore, a reasoned order on a substantial issue is legally necessary. The judgments on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the assessee also points to the same direction. They have held

Central Bank of India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2170/DEL/2015[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023

Bench: SHRI N. K.BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 154Section 200A

Officer to the appellant is completely arbitrary. 4. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in not passing a reasoned order. 5. That the orders passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer and the Ld CIT(A) are unjustified, arbitrary and bad in law as these

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Vks Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 Revenue Appeals are dismissed

ITA 8412/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT(DR)

Section 153CSection 68

Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with provisions of law, therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Vks Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 Revenue Appeals are dismissed

ITA 8411/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT(DR)

Section 153CSection 68

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Vks Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 Revenue Appeals are dismissed

ITA 8410/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT(DR)

Section 153CSection 68

M/S Food Health Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

ITA 37/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 105Section 143(3)Section 263Section 96

prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s.263 of the Act. Accordingly, in terms of our observations above, we uphold the well-reasoned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assesse company is dismissed in terms

M/S Raipur Reality Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

ITA 36/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 105Section 143(3)Section 263Section 96

M/S Heritage Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

ITA 35/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 105Section 143(3)Section 263Section 96

Deepak Kumar Rajoria, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 80G

filed and there cannot be any automatically levy penalty u/s 271A of the Act. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the reasoned order of the lower authorities, wherein the assessee has filed two different return of income and in the later one has filed wrong claim when

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ashapurna Infraproject Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT - DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

additions as no incriminating material was found in the course of search and are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on these grounds of appeal and uphold the same