← All Phrases

“speaking order”

Natural JusticeReasoned OrderReasoned Order6,856 judgments

The decision most relied on for speaking order is GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (259 ITR 19), cited in 1,349 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on speaking 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.

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
245 ITR 360 · 2000 · Supreme Court
361
citing judgments

An order refusing special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, whether speaking or non-speaking, does not attract the doctrine of merger, meaning the order under challenge is not substituted.

M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT & Anr.
300 ITR 403 · 2008 · Supreme Court
268
citing judgments

Administrative orders must be consistent with the rules of natural justice.

Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT
131 ITR 451 · 1981 · Supreme Court
143
citing judgments

Appellate authorities in income-tax proceedings have the jurisdiction and duty to correct all errors of lower authorities. They must remit matters for proper or fresh adjudication and issue appropriate directions to ensure substantial justice, unless expressly forbidden by statute.

Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
382 ITR 333 · 2016 · High Court
89
citing judgments

Reassessment orders under Section 147/148 are without jurisdiction and invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment through a speaking order, as mandated by the GKN Driveshafts procedure.

Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala
119 STC 505 · Reported
68
citing judgments

A Supreme Court speaking order dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has two implications: the statement of law contained therein constitutes a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, and its findings bind the parties and lower authorities.

PCIT v. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd.
236 Taxmann 494 · 2016 · High Court
58
citing judgments

The incomplete disposal of an assessee's objections by the Assessing Officer makes the reassessment proceedings invalid. The Assessing Officer must dispose of the objections by a speaking order.

Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO
404 ITR 611 · 2018 · High Court
56
citing judgments

Non-compliance with the GKN Driveshafts procedure, specifically not passing a speaking order on objections to reassessment before completing the assessment, is a curable procedural irregularity and does not nullify the assessment, particularly if the assessee did not request a speaking order.

Judgments citing speaking order

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 381/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

Appellant and NCR India. 5.2. Both learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred, in law and on facts, by not passing a speaking order, not considering material brought on record and assuming facts without bringing on record any material to establish the allegations made against Appellant. 6. Without prejudice ... model of the Appellant and NCR India. 5.2. Both Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP have erred, in law and on facts, by not passing a speaking order, not considering material brought on record and assuming facts without bringing on record any material to establish the allegations made against Appellant. 6. Without

Jigar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 604/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Oct 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

this ground of appeal remain unsubstantiated. In the circumstances, I do not have any reason but to sustain the well reasoned and speaking order of the AO estimating the agricultural income of the assessee at Rs.25,99,275/- and holding the balance income of Rs.49,55,101/- (Rs.75

Shyam Sunder, Gururgam vs. ITO ( Circle 4(1), Gurgram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4779/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 54F

Assessing Officer. 5.3 In view of the above facts, the CIT(A) concluded that the assessment order was a well-reasoned and speaking order passed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.1,13,56,916/- was confirmed and all the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed

Shri Babususha Sharnappa Kasbe, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 854/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

three appeals filed before him. It is pertinent to mention that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while deciding the issue has passed a detailed speaking order sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal

Shri Babusha Sharnappa Kasbe, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 853/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

three appeals filed before him. It is pertinent to mention that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while deciding the issue has passed a detailed speaking order sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal

Shri Babusha Sharnappa Kasbe, Pune vs. (The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 852/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

three appeals filed before him. It is pertinent to mention that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while deciding the issue has passed a detailed speaking order sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal

Gurmeet Singh Hora, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 45/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 45/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gurmeet Singh Hora A-1, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaoph6268D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

submissions. Whether the statute specifically provides for it or not, in our considered view, the need for disposal of objections by way of a speaking order has to be read into it as the Assessing Officer CPC, while disposing of the 13 Gurmeet Singh Hora Vs. ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru objections

Punjab Zoos Development Society, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1144/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 272

aside the impugned order and restore and the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication by way of speaking order with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. 3. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Geet and Jeet Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Barmer vs. ITO, Ward-1, Barmer

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 536/JODH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blegeet & Jeet Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward-1 C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Barmer 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Aaecg 5030 B Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Shri Ghanshyam Meena, Jcit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 07.04.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit (A)-9 Mumbai Dated 12.03.2025 Challenging Therein Rejection Of Its Appeal By The Ld. Cit(A) By Discussing Facts Of The Other Case.

case after considering the true facts, written submissions of the assessee and after granting adequate opportunity of being heard by passing a speaking order. 3. The Ld. DR although relied on the impugned order. However, he did not controvert the facts that the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed facts

Urja Properties Pvt. Ltd., Jagdalpur vs. Income Tax Office, Jagdalpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 232/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.232/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Urja Properties Private Limited Bms House, Motitalab Para, Jagdalpur (C.G.)-494 001 Pan: Aabcu6244N

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: None (Petition filed)
Section 250

highest fact finding authority must be certain enough that the impugned order before it has been passed on merits and is a speaking order where the assessee has also complied during the process of litigation. In case, where the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) itself is ex- parte ... framework of the Act, Ld.CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where an appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided through a speaking order by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). When this part is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies before the ITAT. Now if for every

Vikash Chhatri, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.226, 227, 228, 229 & 230/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 Vikas Chhatri Santosh Egg Centre, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Avqpc8070K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata Kayarwar, CAFor Respondent: None (Petition filed)
Section 250

highest fact finding authority must be certain enough that the impugned order before it has been passed on merits and is a speaking order where the assessee has also complied during the process of litigation. In case, where the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) itself is ex- parte ... framework of the Act, Ld.CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where an appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided through a speaking order by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). When this part is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies before the ITAT. Now if for every

Vikash Chhatri, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/RPR/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.226, 227, 228, 229 & 230/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 Vikas Chhatri Santosh Egg Centre, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Avqpc8070K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata Kayarwar, CAFor Respondent: None (Petition filed)
Section 250

highest fact finding authority must be certain enough that the impugned order before it has been passed on merits and is a speaking order where the assessee has also complied during the process of litigation. In case, where the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) itself is ex- parte ... framework of the Act, Ld.CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where an appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided through a speaking order by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). When this part is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies before the ITAT. Now if for every

Vikas Chhatri, Bilaspur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 228/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.226, 227, 228, 229 & 230/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 Vikas Chhatri Santosh Egg Centre, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Avqpc8070K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata Kayarwar, CAFor Respondent: None (Petition filed)
Section 250

highest fact finding authority must be certain enough that the impugned order before it has been passed on merits and is a speaking order where the assessee has also complied during the process of litigation. In case, where the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) itself is ex- parte ... framework of the Act, Ld.CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where an appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided through a speaking order by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). When this part is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies before the ITAT. Now if for every

Vikas Chhatri, Bilaspur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.226, 227, 228, 229 & 230/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 Vikas Chhatri Santosh Egg Centre, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Avqpc8070K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata Kayarwar, CAFor Respondent: None (Petition filed)
Section 250

highest fact finding authority must be certain enough that the impugned order before it has been passed on merits and is a speaking order where the assessee has also complied during the process of litigation. In case, where the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) itself is ex- parte ... framework of the Act, Ld.CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where an appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided through a speaking order by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). When this part is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies before the ITAT. Now if for every

Vikas Chhatri, Bilaspur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 226/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.226, 227, 228, 229 & 230/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 Vikas Chhatri Santosh Egg Centre, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Avqpc8070K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namrata Kayarwar, CAFor Respondent: None (Petition filed)
Section 250

highest fact finding authority must be certain enough that the impugned order before it has been passed on merits and is a speaking order where the assessee has also complied during the process of litigation. In case, where the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) itself is ex- parte ... framework of the Act, Ld.CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where an appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided through a speaking order by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). When this part is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies before the ITAT. Now if for every

Himanshu Daksheshkumar Katwala, Khambhat Anand vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/AHD/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hardik J Raval & Vivek D Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

section 147 is invalid. 4. The reassessment proceedings are vitiated as the Assessing Officer failed to follow due procedure and failed to pass a speaking order while dealing with objections, HImanshu Daksheshkumar Katwala vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– 5. The authorities erred in confirming the addition

Wisdom Education Trust(R), Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysuru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2501/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri KR Vasudevan & Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

with law and is against the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A), being a quasi-judicial authority, is required to pass a speaking order after due consideration of the submissions and evidence placed before him. 8.1 We further observe that the additions made by the AO involve factual

Wisdom Education Trust (R), Mysuru vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysuru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2029/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri KR Vasudevan & Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

with law and is against the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A), being a quasi-judicial authority, is required to pass a speaking order after due consideration of the submissions and evidence placed before him. 8.1 We further observe that the additions made by the AO involve factual

Trambak Raghunath Kale, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Amravati

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 30/NAG/2026[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.30/Nag/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Trambak Raghunath Kale, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Congress Nagar, Camp Road, Ward-3, Amravati Amravati-444602, Maharashtra Pan: Bbbpk6461L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

grounds raised are dismissed. In the result, appeal is dismissed.” 6. The above finding by ld.CIT(A) prima-facie appears to be a non-speaking order and there is no discussion on merits of the case. 7. I however considering the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

Bharat Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 110/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.110/Rpr/2026 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Bharat Kumar Agrawal Opp. Om Hospital, Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Acjpa4289L ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2026 2 Bharat Kumar Agrawal Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250

highest fact finding authority must be certain enough that the impugned order before it has been passed on merits and is a speaking order where the assessee has also complied 11 Bharat Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.110/RPR/2026 during the process of litigation. In case ... framework of the Act, Ld.CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where an appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided through a speaking order by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). When this part is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies before the ITAT. Now if for every