← All Phrases

“speaking order”

Natural JusticeReasoned OrderReasoned Order6,856 judgments

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,JAGDALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, JAGDALPUR, 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,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, 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,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, 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,BILASPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, 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,BILASPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, 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,BILASPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, 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, 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,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 110/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250

nhighest fact finding authority must be certain enough that\nthe impugned order before it has been passed on merits and\nis a speaking order where the assessee has also complied\n11\nBharat Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)\nITA No.110/RPR/2026\nduring the process of litigation. In case ... framework of\nthe Act, Ld.CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where\nan appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided\nthrough a speaking order by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). When this\npart is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies\nbefore the ITAT. Now if for every

RISHU GARG S/O SH. SURENDER KUMAR GARG,YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR

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

ITA 417/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). However, it is evident from the impugned appellate order that, despite several opportunities granted during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to comply and did not file any substantive submissions. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition primarily on account of non-prosecution and absence of supporting evidence.

For Appellant: Ms. Vineet Thakral, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

account of alleged long-term capital gain and also alleging violation of principles of natural justice and passing of a non-speaking order. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who had not filed the return of income for the year under

VINEET KUMAR,DHARAMSHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHARMSHALA

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

ITA 1090/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69A

evident that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without properly adjudicating upon the contentions raised by the assessee and without passing a speaking order as mandated under section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to frame proper points for determination ... fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and shall pass a speaking order after duly considering the submissions and evidences to be furnished by the assessee. 12. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the set-aside

BASANT KUMAR MISHRA, KORBA,KORBA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

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

ITA 72/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Raipur19 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.71 & 72/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Basant Kumar Mishra Mig-1-57, Svbp Nagar, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.)-495 450 Pan: Aktpm2030M

For Appellant: Shri Yash Dhariwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250(4)

/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file with a direction to admit and consider additional evidences and then come out with a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act while 4 Basant Kumar Mishra Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA Nos.71

BASANT KUMAR MISHARA, KORBA,KORBA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILAPSUR

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

ITA 71/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Raipur19 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.71 & 72/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Basant Kumar Mishra Mig-1-57, Svbp Nagar, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.)-495 450 Pan: Aktpm2030M

For Appellant: Shri Yash Dhariwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250(4)

/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file with a direction to admit and consider additional evidences and then come out with a speaking order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act while 4 Basant Kumar Mishra Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA Nos.71

M/S SHREE ASSOCIATES, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BILASPUR, BILASPUR

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

ITA 124/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur19 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.124/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Shree Associates Ward No.14, Kotra Road, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan: Abtfs9583J

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 250(4)

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

PRAKASH KUMAR CHAWLA,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) BILASPUR, BILASPUR

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

ITA 123/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Raipur19 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Prakash Kumar Chawla Telipara, Bilaspur-495 001 (C.G.) Pan: Aappc2370L

For Appellant: None (petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

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

J.R.P. BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 252/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.252/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 J.R.P Builders & Developers Quarter No.4, Road No.1, Sector-01, Professor Colony, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Aanfj6828Q

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250(4)

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

NARENDRA BANSAL,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLCE -12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6178/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Year : 2016-17 Narendra Bansal, Vs. Acit, Circle 12(2), A-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi – 110 020 C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 2 [Pan: Ahdpb0964E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

fully appreciated and considered by the AO. We further find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a cryptic and non-speaking order by observing as under:- “Since the appellant has neither been able to prove the genuineness of transaction before the AO nor before me. The transaction in question

Showing 1–20 of 6,856 · Page 1 of 343

...