“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

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 355/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

without dealing with the assessee's objections in a reasoned manner. The finding of the CIT(A) does not meet the requirement of a speaking order. Further, it is apparent that the assessee had filed written submissions in response to the appeal notices and raised the legal issue in detail

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 354/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 353/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Aldiablos Infotech Pvt.Ltd. 1St Floor, Mauryansh Elanza, Shyamal Cross Road, Ahmedabad – 380 015 बनाम/ V/S. The I.T.O. Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakca 3027 E Assessee By: Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Five Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 To 2017-18 Arising From The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao") U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act). Since Common Issues Are Involved, All These Appeals Are Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

Shri Vaishnav Parivar Bahuuddeshiy Sevabhavi Sanstha, Jalna vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2814/PUN/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2814/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2024-25 Vs Cit Exemption, Shri Vaishnav Parivar Bahuuddeshiy Sevabhavi Pune Sanstha, Shelud At Shelud, Post Shelud, Bhokardan, Jalna-431132 Maharashtra Pan-Abgas1253B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 250(6)

assessee. Impugned order is set aside and the issue on merits are remitted to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless required for reasonable

Harit Developers, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA

ITA 2221/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.513/Pun/2022 & 2221/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Harit Developers, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Royal Orange Country, Pune S. No. 29/1, 29/2, Behind Fountain Inn, Rahatni, Pune-411017 Pan : Aagfh5853C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare for ITAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

Rs.40,00,000/- has been wrongly disclosed and offered to tax. We, further notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order since the assessee failed to make proper compliance on due date of hearing. We, therefore, deem it proper to provide one more opportunity

Harit Developers, Pune vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA

ITA 513/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare for ITAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

Prem Chandra, Bokaro vs. ACIT-DCIT, Bokaro

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

ITA 30/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 69A

properly examined in the hands of the firm. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned and speaking order of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, additions made by the Assessing Officer are confirmed." 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee

Saurabh Rastogi, Allahabad vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central) Allahabad, Allahabad

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

ITA 194/ALLD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad07 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68Section 69

pages the appeal was decided without giving findings to the merits of the case and thus the order of CIT(A) is not a speaking order in the eyes of law. 3. That in any view of the matter both the two lower authorities failed to take cognizance

Nav Nirman, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

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

ITA 188/ALLD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

dated 18.01.2021 and 01.02.2021 is hereby confirmed.” 3.1 It is clear from the findings of learned CIT(A) that he failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner. Learned CIT(A) is duty bound ... pass a speaking order on grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before him, on I.T.A. No.188/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 4 merits, but learned CIT(A) failed to do so. Though learned CIT(A) had afforded various opportunities to the assessee to present its case but the assessee failed

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Dev. Corp. Ltd., Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1424/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal and Ms. Rattan Kaur, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 28

1369/Chd/2019 had filed the Misc. Application No. 2/Chd/2022 on 17/05/2024. 3.3 The Tribunal had dismissed the M.A filed by the Revenue by an speaking order dt. 09/08/2024 and in the said order the Tribunal in para 11 has held as under: 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions and considering

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 17/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

valuation of shares as on 31.03.2015. However, the ld.CIT(A) has ignored the said report and passed the impugned order without passing a speaking order on merits of the case. He however submitted that for the FMV of the Equity Shares, Rule 11UA gives the option to the assessee

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 16/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 15/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 14/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 13/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

Mohd Riyazuddin, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 243/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.243/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Mohd. Riyazuddin Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Pan:Ahupm6145M Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Siddharth Toshnival राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Lv Bhaskar Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Dated 18/01/2024 Of The Learned Pr. Cit (Central) Hyderabad The A.Y.2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: : Shri LV Bhaskar Reddy, DR

Section 153DSection 263Section 68

lakhs found during the search is generated from the business of real estate. Therefore, accepting the claim of the assessee while passing a non-speaking order which is rather sub- silentio on the very issue and subject matter of the assessment is definitely falls in the category of lack

Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 409/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.409/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Deputy Commissioner Limited Vs. Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-8(1) [Pan: Aaacd7999Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Ar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 07/04/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.06.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234C

additions made by the assessing officer ignoring the explanations offered and submissions made. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not passing a speaking order while confirming the additions made by the assessing officer and by simply referring to the observations made by the assessing officer. He ought to have

Praksh Pushparaj Golcha, Andheri (W) vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4417/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpraksh Pushparaj Golcha, V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of 6A, Shivkrupa H Wing, बनाम Income Tax– 24(3), Old Nagardas Road, M/O Finance, Income Tax Andheri(W), Department, National Faceless Mumbai-400 069, Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpg9404H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr.Ruturaj H. Gurjar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

preferred appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who confirmed all the additions and appeal was dismissed vide a very cryptic and non speaking order. 5. In a written submission made before us, the ld.AR has made detailed submissions as stated below in nutshell: 1. The said scrip ... reasons for his decision on each such points which arose for determination. He is duty bound to dispose of the appeal through a speaking order on merits, on all the points which arose for determination in the appellate proceedings, including on all the grounds

Yogesh Chandra Nishad, Kadipur Khurd vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Sultanpura

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

ITA 183/ALLD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 292BSection 56Section 69A

assessee’s side and ultimately the CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order. It is found that the learned CIT(A) did not pass speaking order on merits of the grounds of appeal raised before him. In view of these facts and circumstances, it was felt that the issue

Goutam Mittal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 50/RPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.50/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Shri Goutam Mittal Mittal Niwas, Agrasan Chouk, Bhaisthan, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan: Afupm2158L ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs. Sweta Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

assessee as per return of income and the applicability of the tax regime either old or new and thereafter to pass a speaking order through denovo adjudication while complying with the principles of natural justice. We order accordingly. In case, the A.O decides to assess the assessee