← 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

M/S. Gopal Dhara Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 347/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 43B

order u/s 143(1), grounds of appeal, appeal fees challan details. 3. For that the CIT(A) should have disposed off the appeal by speaking order and on merits even if deciding the appeal ex parte. 4. For that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ... there was no deficiency in the appeal memo as proper attachments were made and the appeal should have been decided vide a speaking order on merits but has not been done and even the A.Y. is incorrectly mentioned in the order. We have considered the submission made. Before

Sankarpur Jamiah Salafiah Bahrul-Uloom, Murshidabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

ITA 1069/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025
Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

paper book running into 97 pages before the Bench. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(E) has passed a non-speaking order and has simply doubted the cash donations even when such donations were duly received and disclosed in the accounts. Regarding the rejection of application under Section ... Uloom their source. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, it deserves to be held that the Ld. CIT(E) must adjudicate through a speaking order and must also consider the details and evidences filed by the assessee. to this extent, we set aside the impugned orders in both

Sankarpur Jamiah Salafiah Bahrul-Uloom, Murshidabad vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

ITA 1068/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025
Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

paper book running into 97 pages before the Bench. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(E) has passed a non-speaking order and has simply doubted the cash donations even when such donations were duly received and disclosed in the accounts. Regarding the rejection of application under Section ... Uloom their source. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, it deserves to be held that the Ld. CIT(E) must adjudicate through a speaking order and must also consider the details and evidences filed by the assessee. to this extent, we set aside the impugned orders in both

Lokanayak Jayaprakash Memorial Committee, Kolkata vs. CIT (Exemptions), Kolkata

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

ITA 2626/KOL/2024[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025

Bench: Him.

Section 12A(1)(ac)

impugned order and direct that the Ld. CIT(A) should provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order on the basis of facts presented before him. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

ITO, Kolkata vs. Blackberry Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1234/KOL/2023[2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 68

balance sheet after the change of Directors, if any. After conducting the inquiries & verification as directed above, the A.O. should pass a speaking order, providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. The Ld. AO issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to both the then directors Shri

Girdhari Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 973/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Lekh Mehta, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

additional claim raised by the assessee. 20. On this observation, we find that the action of the ld. CIT(A) in not passing a speaking order on this issue is not justifiable. We therefore are of the considered opinion that all these issues are to be remanded back ... supra). We direct the ld. CIT(A) to re-examine this issue in the light of the relevant case laws and to pass a speaking order after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue on the merits and in accordance with law. We have

Avitel Post Studioz Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5242/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)

filed detailed objections, contending that no fresh tangible material existed and all facts were previously disclosed. However, the objections were disposed of vide a speaking order dated 27/05/2019, and reassessment proceedings were initiated. 6. The summary of the findings of the ld. Assessing Officer for giving the disallowance

Income Tax Officer-42(2)(3), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Kaushik Balubhai Madhwani, Girgaon, Mumbai

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

ITA 2861/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri RiteshMisra, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

view of the above, we remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order specific to the grounds raised. 4. Needless to say, that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and make his submissions, as being

The Gokak & Mudalagi Taluka Primary Teachers Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Gokak vs. Income Tax Officer, Gokak

ITA 33/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 033/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Gokak & Mudalagi Taluka Primary Teachers Co-Op. Society, Ltd. Opp. Jss College, Falls Road, Gokak, Dist. Belagavi.-591307 Pan : Aaaat4120D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Gokak, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sateesh Nadagauda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 15/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; By Captioned Appeal The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1071086412(1) Dt. 11/12/2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By National Faceless E-Asstt Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Sateesh Nadagauda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(b)

direction to adjudicate the issue of appellant’s entitlement for claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and pass a speaking order in accordance with law preferably in three hearings. 8. The appeal in result is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. In terms of rule

Uma Kesharwani, Allahabad vs. ITO Ward -1(3), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 45/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution and has not decided the appeal of the assessee on the merits and has not passed a speaking order. We are of the considered view, in view of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act, that the learned CIT(A) has statutory ... duty to pass a speaking order on merits on the various grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. Having regard to the same, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 07/01/2025 to the file of learned CIT(A) and we direct the learned CIT(A) to pass de novo

Pratik Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

ITA 405/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 403, 404 & 405/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years:2015-16, 2016-17 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Ms. Dimple Warlyani, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

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

Pratik Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

ITA 404/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 403, 404 & 405/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years:2015-16, 2016-17 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Ms. Dimple Warlyani, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

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

Pratik Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

ITA 403/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 403, 404 & 405/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years:2015-16, 2016-17 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Ms. Dimple Warlyani, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

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

Kamal Kishore Rathi, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

ITA 101/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 101/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151Section 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

Shri Satyanarayan Seva Samiti, Nayagarh vs. CIT(Exemption), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 208/CTK/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.208/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2025-2026) Shri Satyanarayan Seva Samiti Vs Cit(Exemption), Bhubaneswar

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

grant of registration u/s.12A of the Act. Further a perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(E) shows that the order is not a speaking order, insofar as no details are coming out from the order of the ld.CIT(E). What are the activities of the trust which

Rafikbhai Ajijbhai Virani, Jamnagar vs. The Assessement Unit NFAC Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 141/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Rafikbhai Ajijbhai Virani बनाम The Assessment Unit, National Steet No.2, Near Navnala, Faceless Assessment Center, Income /Vs. Gulabnagar Tari Hanuman Tax Department Road, Jamnagar-361007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ascpv 1519 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sankar Bakshi, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”, Dated 18.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 19.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 2. “Reopening U/S 148A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) 1. The Learned The National Faceless Appeal Centre [“The Cit(A)”] & The Assessment Unti, Income Tax Department (“The Ao”) Erred In Fact & In Law In Initiating Proceedings U/S 148 Of The Act Without Issuing Notice U/S Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

r.w.s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. We note that ... examined ITA No. 141/RJT/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani assessment records and relevant documents and has not passed any speaking order. Considering the above facts, we note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

noncompliance without addressing the issue on merits The Ld CIT(A) has erred in summarily dismissing the assessee's appeal, by passing a non-speaking order, without making any mention of the various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in his appellate order and without discussing the merits

Dawa Dolma, Paonta Sahib vs. Income Tax Officer, Nahan

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 369/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 369/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dawa Dolma, Ito, बनाम House N.61, Nahan, H.P. Tibentan Colony, Vs. Bhuppur, Paonta Sahib 173025 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bmfpd9499A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Varinder Bhatia, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Varinder Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250

reason for not considering it. Thus, the ld. Counsel submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order after considering the submissions and documentary evidence furnished by the Assessee. 369-Chd-2025 Dawa Dolma, Paonta Sahib 4 5. Per Contra

Pola Co Operative Societies Limited, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Sirhind, Sirhind

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1146/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pola Co-Operative Societies Limited Ito Village Pola बनाम/ Vs. Ward Sirhind Fatehgarh Sahib 140406 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabat-3441-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)– Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Central (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15-10- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S 144 Of The Act On 24-05-2021. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Assessment Of Income At Rs.554.22 Lacs. The Assessee Has Failed To Appear Before Ld. Ao. The Ld. Cit(A) Did

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 144

aside the impugned order and restore 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

Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 275/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prathik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 250Section 270Section 271(1)(c)

that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT