← 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

Shard Kumar Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

ITA 186/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Sharad Kumar Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

In the result, the “Impugned order” is set aside as & by

ITA 185/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

with the Consolidated Impugned Assessment Order” & the “Impugned Order” & both are required to be upheld. Both the orders are just fair & equitable. They are speaking orders & well reasoned too. The Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue then invited our attention to internal page 10 of the “consolidate Impugned Assessment Order

Sharad Kumar Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central -2, Bhopal

ITA 184/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Sharad Kumar Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

ITA 183/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Sharad Kumar Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

In the result, the “Impugned order” is set aside as & by

ITA 182/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

with the Consolidated Impugned Assessment Order” & the “Impugned Order” & both are required to be upheld. Both the orders are just fair & equitable. They are speaking orders & well reasoned too. The Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue then invited our attention to internal page 10 of the “consolidate Impugned Assessment Order

Sarad Kumar Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central -2, Bhopal

In the result, the “Impugned order” is set aside as & by

ITA 181/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

with the Consolidated Impugned Assessment Order” & the “Impugned Order” & both are required to be upheld. Both the orders are just fair & equitable. They are speaking orders & well reasoned too. The Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue then invited our attention to internal page 10 of the “consolidate Impugned Assessment Order

Bhimrav Mahtarji Sonwane, Tad Pimpalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3096/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3096/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Bhimrav Mahtarji Sonwane, V Income Tax Officer, At Post Tad Pimpalgaon Ta S Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Kannad Dist Aurangabad, Aurangabad – 431115. Pan:Cnzps9338D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Chudiwal Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23Dated 17.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 28.02.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A). Nfac Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Considering The Written Submissions, Documents, Books Of

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

documentary proof, and without any material to show actual involvement of the appellant. 5. The CIT(A) erred in law by not passing a speaking order and merely reproducing legal case laws on non-prosecution instead of adjudicating each ground on merits as mandated u/s 250(6). 6. The assessment

Sangita Ramchandra Mahadik, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 81(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2419/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2419/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sangita Ramchandra Mahadik, Ito, Ward-81(2), Pune E-704, Dewdale Housing Society, Opposite Tranquille Society, Vs. Datta Mandir Road, Wakad, Pune-411057 Pan : Ajipm3603J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kamal Valvani Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Kamal ValvaniFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

endorsing the findings of the Ld. AO by observing as under : “It can be seen that the AO has passed a detailed, reasoned and speaking order considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case. Reasonable opportunities of being heard were also allowed by the AO to the appellant ... play to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for denovo adjudication and pass speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide

Jitendra Nanasaheb Thorat, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Nashik

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

ITA 2307/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2307/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jitendra Nanasaheb Thorat, V Income Tax Officer, A-7, Chaitrapalavi Apartment, S Ward-2(4), Nashik. Ashok Marg, Near Bank Of Maharashtra, Behind Fame Cinema, Nashik – 422006. Pan: Afypt8886Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meema –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2011-12 Dated 28.07.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

appeal : ITA No.2307/PUN/2025 [A] “1] The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution of appeal without passing a speaking order adjudicating the grounds of appeal and detailed contentions advanced vide Statement of Facts uploaded electronically at the time of filing appeal, without appreciating that

Sanjay Vasantrao Patil, Satana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Malegaon

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1894/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without passing any speaking order adjudicating the grounds of appeal and the detailed contentions raised in the statements of facts. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel ... play to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for denovo adjudication and pass speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide

Sanjay Vasantrao Patil, Satana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Malegaon

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1893/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without passing any speaking order adjudicating the grounds of appeal and the detailed contentions raised in the statements of facts. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel ... play to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for denovo adjudication and pass speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide

Asha Shivajirao Bhise, Latur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 2110/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)

Officer (JAO) if new evidence are filed under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. Considering all these details, Ld.CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall grant fair hearing of opportunity to the assessee. Assessee

Sanjay Kumar Mahadeo Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8496/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Prusethsanjaykumar Mahadeo Patil, Flat No.502, A Wing, Shivparvati Chs Ltd., Rsa 54, Mhada Layout, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400067 ............... Appellant Pan: Adlpp0237C

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Shah, Adv. (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 253(3)

erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant, without deciding the matter on merits and without passing a reasoned, speaking order, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. On account of dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, he indirectly

Govind Mansharam Dingwa, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 22(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5020/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

adjudicated these grounds whereas it was the statutory duty of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate these grounds by passing a speaking order. 14. Be that as it may, in my view, when once the assessee has filed a detailed written submissions before duty-bound under law to consider ... said reply and to adjudicate the grounds on merit by passing speaking order, which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, considering the said fact, I am of the view that the matter needs to be restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction

Govind Mansharam Dingwa, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 22(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5019/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

adjudicated these grounds whereas it was the statutory duty of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate these grounds by passing a speaking order. 14. Be that as it may, in my view, when once the assessee has filed a detailed written submissions before duty-bound under law to consider ... said reply and to adjudicate the grounds on merit by passing speaking order, which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, considering the said fact, I am of the view that the matter needs to be restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction

Vijay Raaz, Godbundar Road, Dist. Thane vs. Ward 16(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3416/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vijay Raaz Ward 16(1)(5), Mumbai Cottage No. B-13, Cosmos Hawaiian, Near Blue Roof Club, Ghodbunder Vs. Road, Thane, West 400 601. Pan/Gir No. Adlpr8784L (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 29ASection 80G

findings to the assessee; hence, the revision order violates principles of natural justice. Objection raised by the assessee was never refuted or no speaking order passed under section 263 against the same. 5. The learned PCIT erred in law by invoking provision of section 263 and passed the order under ... show cause notice proposing the reopening of the assessment and reassess the income under section 263 in violation of CBDT guidelines of issuing the speaking order. No findings recorded how the donation paid by the assessee is non-genuine: 6. The learned PCIT failed to bring on record any findings

Business India Publications Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5734/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarbusiness India Publications Vs Income Tax Officer Limited. Income Tax Office-3(1)(2) Room 21 Framroz Court, 4Th Floor, No.666 Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Marine Drive, Next To Sea Mumbai-400020 Green Hotel, Maharashtra- 400020 Pan:Aaacb4739Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr.Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr.AR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

assessee is that the Ld.AO till the date of passing the assessment order has not disposed of the objection by passing a speaking order, as per the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (I) Ltd vs ITO reported in 125 Taxman

Biliya Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, Morbi, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward 1, Morbi

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

ITA 742/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 742/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Biliya Seva Sahkari Mandli Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Limited Vibhag, J.K. Chamber, National At. Biliya, Tal. Morbi, Gujarat, Highway-8-A, At- Lalpar, Morvi 363641 (Gujarat) Morbi 363642 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabab3498H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 234FSection 253(5)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(d)

remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merit and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee of being heard, who in turn, is also directed to submit the relevant documents in support of the case

S M Construction, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 539/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Viral Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 148Section 194JSection 44A

failed to appreciate the facts of the case in the right perspective and order is issued without considering the reply of appellant, without issuing speaking order. Order issued was against the natural justice and need to be deleted. (5) That, without prejudice to above, an addition of Rs.275,378 being

Ram Lakhan Maurya, Pratapgarh vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Allahabad

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

ITA 82/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)

order without providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant assessee and in a summary manner. The order of the learned CIT(A) is not a speaking order as regards the various grounds of appeal. Thus, the order of learned CIT(A) has been passed without adhering to the provisions of section