← 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

Mira Tulsian, Rajat Gardens vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 643/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 643/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Mira Tulsian, Vs. Dcit, Circle – 1(1), Rajkot Rajat Gardens,Flat 206, 21 Ballygunj Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Park Road, Ballygunj, West Bengal- Ring Road, Gujarat – 360001 700019 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdpt0389F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 250(6)

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. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee ... interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem

Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel, Surendranagar vs. The ITO Ward-2, Surendranagar.

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

ITA 442/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem

Shaileshkumar Maganlal Patel, Surendranagar vs. The ITO Ward-2, Surendranagar.

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

ITA 441/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem

Jyotiben Rameshchandra Shah, Porbandar vs. ITO, W-2(3), Porbandar, Income Tax Office

ITA 184/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.184/Rjt/2024

Section 144Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 38/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

grossly erred in law and facts of the case in vacating the addition of Rs. 4,46,125/- based on a non-speaking order, i.e., without recording any cogent reason in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case of the assessee company for the subject year ... supra) as a genuine loan. We say so, for the reason that the view taken by the CIT(A) is backed by a non-speaking order, i.e., without recording any cogent reason in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case of the assessee company for the subject year

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 37/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

grossly erred in law and facts of the case in vacating the addition of Rs. 4,46,125/- based on a non-speaking order, i.e., without recording any cogent reason in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case of the assessee company for the subject year ... supra) as a genuine loan. We say so, for the reason that the view taken by the CIT(A) is backed by a non-speaking order, i.e., without recording any cogent reason in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case of the assessee company for the subject year

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

grossly erred in law and facts of the case in vacating the addition of Rs. 4,46,125/- based on a non-speaking order, i.e., without recording any cogent reason in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case of the assessee company for the subject year ... supra) as a genuine loan. We say so, for the reason that the view taken by the CIT(A) is backed by a non-speaking order, i.e., without recording any cogent reason in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case of the assessee company for the subject year

The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

grossly erred in law and facts of the case in vacating the addition of Rs. 4,46,125/- based on a non-speaking order, i.e., without recording any cogent reason in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case of the assessee company for the subject year ... supra) as a genuine loan. We say so, for the reason that the view taken by the CIT(A) is backed by a non-speaking order, i.e., without recording any cogent reason in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case of the assessee company for the subject year

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

grossly erred in law and facts of the case in vacating the addition of Rs. 4,46,125/- based on a non-speaking order, i.e., without recording any cogent reason in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case of the assessee company for the subject year ... supra) as a genuine loan. We say so, for the reason that the view taken by the CIT(A) is backed by a non-speaking order, i.e., without recording any cogent reason in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case of the assessee company for the subject year

Mihu Foundation, Noida vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 210/LKW/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

genuineness of its activities, without specifying any particular shortcoming or deficiency. A quasi-judicial authority is expected to provide a well-reasoned and speaking order, addressing the submissions and evidence placed before it. In the absence of any specific findings or reasoning, the order is arbitrary, unjust, and liable ... genuineness of its activities, without specifying any particular shortcoming or deficiency. A quasi-judicial authority is expected to provide a well-reasoned and speaking order, addressing the submissions and evidence placed before it. In the absence of any specific findings or reasoning, the order is arbitrary, unjust, and liable

Mihu Foundation, Noida vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 209/LKW/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

genuineness of its activities, without specifying any particular shortcoming or deficiency. A quasi-judicial authority is expected to provide a well-reasoned and speaking order, addressing the submissions and evidence placed before it. In the absence of any specific findings or reasoning, the order is arbitrary, unjust, and liable ... genuineness of its activities, without specifying any particular shortcoming or deficiency. A quasi-judicial authority is expected to provide a well-reasoned and speaking order, addressing the submissions and evidence placed before it. In the absence of any specific findings or reasoning, the order is arbitrary, unjust, and liable

Evroy Infraventures Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. ACIT-CC-2, Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 260/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Evroy Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. V. Acit C-48, Kalyanpur Central Circle 2 Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aadce4237F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kanpur – 4 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Was Carried Out On 17.01.2019 In Dr. M.C. Sharma, S.P.M. Hospital & Trauma Centre Group Of Cases & Also In The Case Of The Assessee’S Firm. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Infrastructure Development & Other Related Work. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 27.05.2020, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.71,940/-. During The Course Of Search & Seizure Operation

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271A

finds that some sales are not booked correctly by following the mercantile system of accounting, the same may be rectified by passing a speaking order. The Ld. A.R. submitted that it was well within the powers of the ld. CIT(A) to have given complete relief to the assessee

Ram Parsad Dav Public School Society, Markanda vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward, Ambala

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

ITA 752/CHANDI/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Because the action is being challenged on facts & laws since there being mis-understanding of law, mis-application of jurisdiction for not passing a speaking order pursuant to the case of Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd vs Sh Masood Ahmed Khan(2010) 9SCC 496 (SC). 2 Because the action is being ... aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights) and judicial precedents, the CIT(A) noted that Section 250(6) requires a speaking order but restricts adjudication to available records when the assessee fails to appear or submit documents. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on 26/10/2022 for lack

Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 121/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatray DhavaleFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and pass speaking order on merits as per facts and law, after allowing one final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide

Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 120/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatray DhavaleFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and pass speaking order on merits as per facts and law, after allowing one final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide

Ashik Jaiwantrao Kulkarni, Nanded vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nanded

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1728/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1614, 1613 & 1728/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

Section 250(6)

give one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the appeals as per fact and law by passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also hereby directed to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before ld.CIT

Ashok Jaiwantrao Kulkarni, Nanded vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Nanded

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1614/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1614, 1613 & 1728/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Ashok Jaiwantrao Kulkarni, Vijay Colony, Behind Torodekar Chambers, Nanded - 431 605, Maharashtra Pan: Bmapk4395K Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nanded Respondent Assessee By Department By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Shri Rajeev Thakkar Shri Ramnath P Murkunde 30.06.2025 30.06.2025 Per Bench : आदेश / Order

Section 250(6)

give one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the appeals as per fact and law by passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also hereby directed to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before ld.CIT

Ashok Jaiwantrao Kulkarni, Nanded vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Nanded

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1613/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1614, 1613 & 1728/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

Section 250(6)

give one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the appeals as per fact and law by passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also hereby directed to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before ld.CIT

Shri Kaushik Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 61(2), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 838/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

appellant in the Memo of Appeal. 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law since the order passed is not any speaking order nor the CIT(A) has looked into the assessment records and relevant materials to conclude that the order of the Ld. AO cannot

Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3113/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

account of acquisition of M/s. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited and accordingly, directed the AO to modify the assessment by passing a speaking order and also initiated penalty proceedings as per the provisions of the Act. 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the observations