← 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

Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 444/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti,……………….…Appellant 27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Srimini Market, Kolkata-700006, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatb7422R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

which arise from the order appealed against before him and that he is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order and deciding the points raised in appeal by stating his reasons for the decision as such. The relevant observations of the said Bombay High ... above premise, it is submitted that the disposal of the appeal by the Ld. C.I.T.(A) by not passing a speaking order on each of the grounds of objection raised in the appeal is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed more so when entire details, information

Akhil Bharatvarshiya Ch Ksh Mahasabha, Kolkata vs. Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru

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

ITA 380/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 380/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Akhil Bharatvarshiya Ch Ksh Mahasabha,..Appellant C/O. Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates, 133/1/1A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700013, West Bengal [Pan:Aaaaa8373R] -Vs.- Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc),……...Respondent Bengaluru, Income Tax Department, Post Box No. 1, Electronic City Post Office, Bengaluru-560100 Appearances By: Shri Deep Agrawal, A.R. & Shri Subhankar Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)

Officer to consider the written submission filed by the assessee as well as to examine the facts of the case afresh and pass a speaking order. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/07/2025. (Duvvuru

Tirupati Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 266/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 266/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Tirupati Cold Storage Pvt. Limited,.………Appellant 79, Sambhunath Pandit Street, Bhawanipur, Kolkata-700020 [Pan:Aabct0126C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sheo Prakash Bhatter, Director, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

assessee-company before the ITAT regarding the mode of payments and if it is true or not and to pass a detailed speaking order after providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with

Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai, Kanyakumari vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Tuticorin

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1357/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1357/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai, The Ito, 12-5 G/4, Kumaragam Garden, International Taxation Ward, Channel Street, Vadakkoor, Thovalai, Tuticorin. Kanyakumari 629 302. [Pan: Ahepb 2348 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-16, (Hereinafter In Short ‘The Ld.Cit(A)’), Dated 31.07.2024 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short ‘Ay’) 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of ‘224’ Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Pleaded, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai :: 2 :: 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Raised An Additional Ground Relating To Jurisdiction Of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘Jao’) In The Light Of The Cbdt Notification Dated 29.03.2022. The Ld.Dr, Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit, Objected Admission Of Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee.

For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand ... inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order

Annakkalanjiyam Mathivathanam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1156/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1156/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Annakkalanjiyam Mathivathanan, Income Tax Officer, No.91/15, East Jones Road, Non-Corp Ward-19(2), Chennai-600 015. Chennai. [Pan: Aagpm1853P]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

claimed as exempt by the assessee remains unsubstantiated. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned and speaking order of the AO. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 55,10,422/- made by the AO is confirmed. 6. Before us, the ld.AR

M/S.Mahogany Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

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

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

submitted by them, as seen from assessment order that the order has been passed by the Assessing Officer with application of mind with a speaking order, not accepting deduction as claimed by the assessee, but, reworking the same. In the present case, as discussed above, there was no discussion

Rajesh Vrajlal Dhanki, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -Central Circle 33(3), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3565/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Vrajlal Dhanki Acit, Central Circle –33(3), 122, 1St Floor, Commerce House, Vs 607, C-12,Prathyaksha Kar Bhawan, Dr. V. B. Gandhi Road Fort, Bkc, Bandra(E), Kala Ghoda, Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-51 [Pan: Aaapd8581D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 2(14)Section 254(1)

erred in both facts and law while passing the order. 2. That the Ld. A.O. and CIT (A) had erred in not passing a speaking order. 3. That the Ld. A.O and Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not considering the Bombay HC judgement in Pr. Commissioner of Income

Vijay Israni, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, Delhi

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

ITA 752/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

finding of the AO and opinion has been formed through the already available facts d) The Ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order as repetitions of facts do not form basis of any opinion. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Promotional Club, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-28(1), Delhi

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

ITA 748/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.748 /Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Promotional Club Income Tax Officer, D-815, New Friends Colony, Ward-28(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi - 110025 Vs. Minto Road, New Delhi Pan: Aajfp4348R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

Section 115BSection 234BSection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 68

order in contravention of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which makes it obligatory for the CIT(A) to pass speaking order deciding the points raised in appeal. 2. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in non-verifying the authenticity of various ad- hoc arbitrary additions

Nisha Data Com Limited, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Rourkela, Rourkela

In the result, both the appeals filed for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-

ITA 174/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133BSection 144Section 250Section 40

further note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal ... merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference. The relevant extract from the order is as under: “6. … The first respondent is the appellate authority. Needless to state that the Appellate Authority is also a fact finding authority and therefore

Nisha Data Com Limited, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Rourkela, Rourkela

In the result, both the appeals filed for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-

ITA 173/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133BSection 144Section 250Section 40

further note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal ... merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference. The relevant extract from the order is as under: “6. … The first respondent is the appellate authority. Needless to state that the Appellate Authority is also a fact finding authority and therefore

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 820/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

regard, it is submitted that once assessee raises objections against reopening, assessee officer is bound to first dispose off such objections by passing a speaking order, before proceedings further to complete re assessment proceedings as per the law laid down by hon'bleSupreme Court in GKN Driveshafts(India ... Taxman 963. Whereas in the instant case, Id.AO has not disposed off objections raised by assessee by speaking order. It is therefore submitted that re assessment proceedings completed in a casual manner and without following the due process are not in accordance with law and order so passed deserves

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 819/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

submitted that that once assessee raises objections against reopening, assessee officer is bound to first dispose off such objections by passing a speaking order, before proceedings further to complete re assessment proceedings as per the law laid down by hon'bleSupreme Court in GKN Driveshafts(India ... Taxman 963. Whereas in the instant case, Id.AO has not disposed off objections raised by assessee by speaking order. It is therefore submitted that re assessment proceedings completed in a casual manner and without following the due process are not in accordance with law and order so passed deserves

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 818/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

regard, it is submitted that once assessee raises objections against reopening, assessee officer is bound to first dispose off such objections by passing a speaking order, before proceedings further to complete re assessment proceedings as per the law laid down by hon'bleSupreme Court in GKN Driveshafts(India ... Taxman 963. Whereas in the instant case, Id.AO has not disposed off objections raised by assessee by speaking order. It is therefore submitted that re assessment proceedings completed in a casual manner and without following the due process are not in accordance with law and order so passed deserves

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commssioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 817/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

submitted that that once assessee raises objections against reopening, assessee officer is bound to first dispose off such objections by passing a speaking order, before proceedings further to complete re assessment proceedings as per the law laid down by hon'bleSupreme Court in GKN Driveshafts(India ... Taxman 963. Whereas in the instant case, Id.AO has not disposed off objections raised by assessee by speaking order. It is therefore submitted that re assessment proceedings completed in a casual manner and without following the due process are not in accordance with law and order so passed deserves

Ravinder Singh Thakkar, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 816/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147

submitted that that once assessee raises objections against reopening, assessee officer is bound to first dispose off such objections by passing a speaking order, before proceedings further to complete re assessment proceedings as per the law laid down by hon'bleSupreme Court in GKN Driveshafts(India ... Taxman 963. Whereas in the instant case, Id.AO has not disposed off objections raised by assessee by speaking order. It is therefore submitted that re assessment proceedings completed in a casual manner and without following the due process are not in accordance with law and order so passed deserves

Sylvan Greens Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Bhala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 801C

seriously erred in adding Subsidy received Rs. 7186388 as business income only on the basis of surmises, without passing the speaking order regarding to all objections raised by the assessee, without considering the object for which subsidy was given, without following the proper procedure with respect with respect to reassessment ... additions made by the Ld AO regarding Subsidy received Rs. 7186388 as business income only on the basis of surmises, without passing the speaking order regarding to all objections raised by the assessee, without considering the object for which subsidy was given, without following the proper procedure with respect with

Nitu Kumari Manish Kumar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 714/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Nitu Kumari Manish Kumar The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) Shreenath Bungalows Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Full Stop Society Motera, Chankheda Link Road Gujarat. Pan : Dvfpk 8773 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Nitin Pathak, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69

year. A notice under section 148A(b) dated 20.03.2022 was issued to the assessee. However, no reply was filed. Thereafter, the AO passed a speaking order under section 148A(d) dated 31.03.2022, concluding that income had escaped assessment, and issued notice under section 148. Despite service of notice, no return

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Dailmer Industries Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 276/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Dailmer Industries Private Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Limited 4Th Floor, Room No. 403, 67/C, Balaram Dey Street, Vs. Kolkata-700107, West Bengal Kolkata-700006, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd0836D Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nirav Sheth, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 68

could not be served. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by passing very reasoned and speaking order. We note that the ld. CIT (A) has clearly recorded a finding of fact that Shri Navin Kumar Saffar was chief account head of Goel

M/S. Bata India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1073/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 115PSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 250

therefore, be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case, it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand ... inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order