← 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

Mr Manish Jagdish Bajaj, Mumbai vs. PCIT-41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2758/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Manish Jagdish Bajaj Pcit-41, Mumbai Flat No. 605,606, 6Th Floor, Farm Room No. 541, Kautilya Manor Chs Adarsh Colony, Marve Vs. Bhava, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Road, Malad (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400064 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan No. Aghpb 6661 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R A Dhyani, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee reasonable opportunity Assessing Officer shall give the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a s of being heard and pass a speaking order after taking into peaking order after taking into consideration the explanation and supporting evidence submitted consideration the explanation and supporting evidence submitted consideration

M/S. Parvesh Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2714/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Nishit Gandhi
Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

prior approval mandated under Section 151 of the Act, and that due process—such as furnishing of reasons and disposal of objections by a speaking order—had been scrupulously followed. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee's challenge to the legality of the reassessment and upheld ... were recorded with prior sanction under Section 151 of the Act, were furnished to the assessee, and the objections were disposed of by a speaking order. Thus, the Learned CIT(A) concluded that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated, the additions were made on grounds forming part of the reasons

Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants (India) Private Limited, Delhi, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(1), Delhi, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay

ITA 3964/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Stay Application No.61/Del/2025 ( In Ita No. 3964/Del/2024 ) Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Nageshwar Rao and ParthFor Respondent: ShriDharam Veer Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(12)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 41Section 92

quadrangular in nature and are only reported out of abundant caution. Corporate Tax Grounds 10. Ld. AO has erred in passing a non-speaking order under section 143(3) of the Act wherein no details or findings or reference is mentioned basis which addition is made relying on the intimation

Ram Bishal Sharma, Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 341/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.341/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ram Bishal Sharma Plot No.211/3, Vip Nagar, Risali Bhilai (C.G.)-490 006 Pan: Bocps4143F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.K Pansari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
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

Medent Unicus Society, Tadigadapa vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemption, Rajahmundry

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA

ITA 164/VIZ/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Us:

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 8O

Representative of the assessee society, at the threshold of the hearing of the appeal, submitted that the CIT(Exemption) had based on a non- speaking order without giving any cogent and plausible reason rejected u/s 12AB of the Act. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that ... Exemption). However, the Ld. CIT, DR on being confronted by the fact that the CIT(Exemption) had failed to pass a speaking order, fairly admitted the said factual position. 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both parties in the backdrop

Medeng Unicus Society, Tadigadapa vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemption, Rajahmundry

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA

ITA 163/VIZ/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Us:

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 8O

Representative of the assessee society, at the threshold of the hearing of the appeal, submitted that the CIT(Exemption) had based on a non- speaking order without giving any cogent and plausible reason rejected u/s 12AB of the Act. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that ... Exemption). However, the Ld. CIT, DR on being confronted by the fact that the CIT(Exemption) had failed to pass a speaking order, fairly admitted the said factual position. 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both parties in the backdrop

Naga Sambasiva Charitable Service Trust, West Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 109/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.109/Viz/2025 Naga Sambasiva Charitable Service Trust V. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward) #3-18, Unguturu Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan West Godavari District – 534411 Kambala Cheruvu, Veerabhadrapuram Andhra Pradesh Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaetn2042D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Ld.CIT(E). 5. At the outset, Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld. CIT(E) has not passed a speaking order for the denial of registration to the assessee. He further submitted that various documentary evidences have been provided before Ld. CIT(E) but he has casually ... direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish required details and to decide the case on merits by passing a speaking order. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate and furnish necessary documents / information as required by the Ld.CIT(E). 9. In the result, appeal

The Bhimavaram Aqua Dealers Association, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 108/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Ld.CIT(E). 5. At the outset, Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld. CIT(E) has not passed a speaking order for the denial of registration to the assessee. He further submitted that various documentary evidences, including the activity report stating that free food was supplied ... direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish required details and to decide the case on merits by passing a speaking order. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate and furnish necessary documents / information as required by the Ld.CIT(E). 9. In the result, appeal

Sree Srinivasa Trust, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 107/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.107/Viz/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Ld.CIT(E). 5. At the outset, Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld. CIT(E) has not passed a speaking order for the denial of registration to the assessee. He further submitted that various documentary evidences have been provided before Ld. CIT(E) but he has casually ... direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish required details and to decide the case on merits by passing a speaking order. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate and furnish necessary documents / information as required by the Ld.CIT(E). 9. In the result, appeal

Vardhaman Vasundhara Family Trust, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 741/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.741/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Vardhaman Vasundhara Family Trust, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 1A, F-1, Irani Market Compound, Ward – 7(1), Pune Yerwada, Pune-411006 Vs. Pan : Aactv6457E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 25-06-2025 Date Of 27-06-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

assessee by way of ground No. 2 raised before him. The impugned order passed by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) is a non-speaking order on merits of the case. Therefore, in our view, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) is in violation of the provisions ... aside the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh on merits and pass speaking order on merits as per facts and law, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide

Ravindra Joma Bhagat, Panvel vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 1, Panvel

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

ITA 416/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10 Ravindra Joma Bhagat Ito, Ward 1, Panvel Plot No.9, Mouli Chhaya, Road Vs. No.9, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410206 Pan: Acqpb9592E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Suresh Kumar Gundher and Abhishek BothraFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide all the appeals on merit by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date and make his submissions, if any, without

Ravindra Joma Bhagat, Panvel vs. Assessing Officer Ward 1, Panvel

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

ITA 415/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10 Ravindra Joma Bhagat Ito, Ward 1, Panvel Plot No.9, Mouli Chhaya, Road Vs. No.9, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410206 Pan: Acqpb9592E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Suresh Kumar Gundher and Abhishek BothraFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide all the appeals on merit by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date and make his submissions, if any, without

Ravindra Joma Bhagat, Panvel vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 1, Panvel

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

ITA 414/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10 Ravindra Joma Bhagat Ito, Ward 1, Panvel Plot No.9, Mouli Chhaya, Road Vs. No.9, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410206 Pan: Acqpb9592E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Suresh Kumar Gundher and Abhishek BothraFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide all the appeals on merit by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date and make his submissions, if any, without

Ravindra Joma Bhagat, Panvel vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 339/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10 Ravindra Joma Bhagat Ito, Ward 1, Panvel Plot No.9, Mouli Chhaya, Road Vs. No.9, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410206 Pan: Acqpb9592E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Suresh Kumar Gundher and Abhishek BothraFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide all the appeals on merit by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date and make his submissions, if any, without

Ravindra Joma Bhagat, Panvel vs. Assessing Officer Ward 1, Panvel

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

ITA 338/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10 Ravindra Joma Bhagat Ito, Ward 1, Panvel Plot No.9, Mouli Chhaya, Road Vs. No.9, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410206 Pan: Acqpb9592E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Suresh Kumar Gundher and Abhishek BothraFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide all the appeals on merit by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date and make his submissions, if any, without

Shabbirahmad Mahamadhanif Mulla, A/P Khandal, Tal Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1250/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1250/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rahul KavaleFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

issues raised before me on merits to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide correct email

Ratnagiri District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ratnagiri vs. ITO Ward 3, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 1140/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh by pass a speaking order on merits as per facts and law, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide the requisite support

Ratnagiri District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ratnagiri vs. ITO Ward 2, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 1139/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh by pass a speaking order on merits as per facts and law, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide the requisite support

Ravindra Joma Bhagat, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 1435/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10 Ravindra Joma Bhagat Ito, Ward 1, Panvel Plot No.9, Mouli Chhaya, Road Vs. No.9, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410206 Pan: Acqpb9592E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Suresh Kumar Gundher and Abhishek BothraFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide all the appeals on merit by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date and make his submissions, if any, without

Vetrivel Senthilkumar, Madurai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1800/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathas.A. No. 58/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 1800/Chny/2025] & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1800/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Vetrivel Senthilkumar, The Income Tax Officer, No.13, Muppar Street, Vs Corporate Ward – 3, Balamurugan Kovil Road, Madurai. Vadipatti, Madurai – 625 218. Pan: Baaps 3641C ("ाथ"क / Petitioner) (""यथ"/Respondent) "ाथ"क क" ओर से/Petitioner By : Ms. N.V. Narayanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025

For Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT
Section 250

assessee. The Ld.AR further submitted that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte and there is no speaking order on merits. 3. We noted that the assessee is non-compliant before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and the FAA also passed the appellate order ... parte by a non-speaking order. Since the order of FAA is ex-parte, we are adjudicating the appeal along with the stay petition. 4. The appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC