“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

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

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

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

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

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2388/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR

Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

erred in refusing to adjudicate the exemption claim u/s 10(108) on merits, thereby violating section 250(6) mandating a reasoned and speaking order on each ground of appeal. The impugned order is non- speaking, arbitrary, contrary to statutory requirements, and deserves to be quashed

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2387/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR

Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

Sunil Subhash Shelar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 3203/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 44A

appropriate to remit the issue regarding addition of ₹ 59,00,333/- to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard

Shamima Haseenathul, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3021/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 115BSection 54ESection 54FSection 68

ld.CIT(A) shall consider the additional evidences admitted by us, obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer, if considered necessary, and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ITA 3021 Chny 2025 A Y 2017-18 Shamima Haseenathul

Aman Gupta, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Ltu Chennai, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 2565/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2565/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Aman Gupta, The Deputy Commissioner A-1, Vrindavan Enclave, Vs. Of Income Tax, 189, Lloyds Road, Circle 1, Gopalapuram, Ltu, Chennai – 600 086. Chennai. Pan: Adzpa 0417D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Tharish, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri V. Tharish, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 147ASection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment... 7. The assessee never filed any such objections before the AO. He is therefore estopped from raising these objections

Tarasing & Sons, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6796/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Revenue -For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 250(4)

assessee has not furnished any response before him. We find that ld. CIT(A) was under obligation to pass a reasonable, justified and speaking order by considering the facts and material on record, so as to comply with the provisions of section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Our aforesaid

Tarasing & Sons, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-33(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6795/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

Ahlcon Parenternals (India) Limited, Rajasthan, India vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 31, Delhi

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

ITA 5279/DEL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd, Vs. Acit, Sp 917-918, Ahlon Parenterals Central Circle-31, India Ltd, Ajanta Chowk, Delhi Bhiwadi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca1112C

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

accordance with law and in the light of the said additional evidences filed by the assessee. The ld AO is directed to pass a speaking order by giving proper finding with regard to the reason for rejecting the books of account and resorting to estimation of gross profit

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Venus Portfolios Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 3826/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

onus of establishing the identity of the lenders as well as their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Ld. CIT(A) has passed a speaking order examining all the facts and evidences and has rightly deleted the addition ... assessee after considering the entire factual matrix in the light of settled legal position. Since Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned and speaking order, we find no reason to interfere with the same. 6 | P a g e ACIT Vs Venus Portfolios Pvt Ltd. 5.3 Accordingly, revenue’s appeal

Shri Veer Shiksha Samiti, Gwalior vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption Circle, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/AGR/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Veer Shiksha Samiti V Cit (Exemption) Jain Chhatrawas Hospital Road, Circle, Bhopal Opposite Madhav Dispensry Lashkar Gwalior- 474 009 Pan : Aamts2399Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12A(1)(ac)

merit. The impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. For removing the ambiguity, that has arisen from non-speaking order of Ld. CIT(E) on the subject of condonation, we, explicitly order and condone the delay in filing the aforesaid application for the registration

Ojas Marketeer, Bilaspur vs. ITO, 2(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 37/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ojas Marketeer 9/92, Green Park Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan: Aacfo7930P

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor 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

Samarth Samarpan Seva Samiti, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(Exmp), Raipur

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

ITA 2/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.02/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Samarth Samarpan Seva Samiti K-6, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aamas2761H ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Incomer Tax Officer, Ward-1 (Exemption), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

impugned order 10 Samarth Samarpan Seva Samiti Vs. ITO, Ward-1(Exemption), Raipur (C.G.) 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 ... 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

Shree Pragati Mandal Santoshba Sanskar Bhavan, Gandhinagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2176/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, ARFor Respondent: ShriR.P. Rastogi, CIT (DR)

Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) shall consider the application afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, after duly considering the submissions and explanations that may be furnished by the assessee and after affording reasonable opportunity of being

Ashok Narayan Satav, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward 12(3), Pune

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

ITA 3355/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3355/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ashok Narayan Satav, V The Income Tax Near Datta Mandir, Wadjai, S Officer, Ward-12(3), Wagholi, Haveli, Pune. Pune – 412207. Pan: Aypps9425G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak S Sasar Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 29.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Has Wrongly Confirmed The Addition Made By

Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69C

provided. I am constrained to agree with the approach adopted by the AO in making the addition. The AO has passed a reasoned and speaking order considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and no interference with the order of the AO is called for. The grounds

Chaya Satish Lodha, Beed vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2625/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Eknath Abhang, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

raised in the instant appeal on merits to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and that the Ld.CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall grant fair hearing of opportunity to the assessee. Assessee

Bindu Sunilkumar Kalappat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8262/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RathiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (SR. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 54

file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to condone delay and to adjudicate the appeal afresh by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set-aside proceedings

Venkatesh Rajgopal Iyer, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8215/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gudher/ Shri Abhishek BhotraFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shendge (SR DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to adjudicate the issues afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all issues are kept open

Venkatesh Rajgopal Iyer, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8214/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gudher/ Shri Abhishek BhotraFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shendge (SR DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Freightbridge Logistics Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7792/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh a/w Mr. Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44B

specific provisions of the Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned and speaking order after considering the remand report, documentary evidence, and independent verification. The estimation of profit at 8% of turnover was arbitrary and devoid of proper basis

Grace Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7685/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khopdia ()

Section 12ASection 80G

Ld.CIT(E) directed to carry out necessary verification in respect of the same and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. In the result