← 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

Krayon Marketing Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-14(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 890/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

lender and hence, no addition could be made under Section 68 of the Act. 7.) BECAUSE Ld. AO failed to pass a speaking order in which the neither of the submissions, assertions and documents brought on records by the appellant were rebutted nor commented upon before passing an adverse order

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai vs. Vmobo Mobile Private Limited, Chennai

In the result the appeal filed by the appellant revenue vide ITA no 1868 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the appellant assesse vide CO number

ITA 1868/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1868/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: G.Mahesh, C.AFor Respondent: R.Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 37(1)Section 46A

readjudication. Therefore we set aside the order of lower authorities and direct the Ld AO to do the assessment De Novo by passing a speaking order after giving due opportunity to the assesse. The assesse shall comply with all the notices of the AO and provide all requested details

Reshma Kamal Abichandani, Manila Philippines vs. Asst. Commissioner, International Taxition Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3499/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Reshma Kamal Abichandani, Vs Acit, E-367, Ramesh Nagar, Circle (1)(1), Delhi – 110 012. Delhi. Pan: Bcqpa3616R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Dua, Ca & Shri J.K. Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Prajna Paramita, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Circle International Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) For Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. Heard & Perused The Record.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Dua, CA &For Respondent: Ms Prajna Paramita, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 285B

reasoned findings, if not by evidences. However, here in the case in hand order passed under clause (d) of section 148A is a non-speaking order. The AO should have justified the said order pointing out why the reopening proceedings against the wife should be continued in spite

Vikas Sharma, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 55(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2015-16 Vikas Sharma, Vs. Acit, Circle 55(1), 301, Krit Plaza, Vikas Bhawan, A-Block Market, New Delhi – 2 Surajmal Vihar, Delhi – 110 092 (Pan: Avjps8784R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri TarunFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CITA(A) with the directions to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 7. In the result

Jain Mahasabha Delhi, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2781/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareekshri Sudhir Pareek

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

necessary. under section 80G of the Act is not necessary. 7. The Ld.CIT(Exemption) shall pass a The Ld.CIT(Exemption) shall pass a speaking order after ta after taking into account the explanation and documentary evidences in support of the account the explanation and documentary evidences in support

Jain Mahasabha Delhi, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2763/DEL/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareekshri Sudhir Pareek

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

necessary. under section 80G of the Act is not necessary. 7. The Ld.CIT(Exemption) shall pass a The Ld.CIT(Exemption) shall pass a speaking order after ta after taking into account the explanation and documentary evidences in support of the account the explanation and documentary evidences in support

Vimlesh Kumar, Raebareli vs. ITO, Raebareli

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

ITA 524/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivatava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vimlesh Kumar Income Tax Officer V. Village & Post Thulendi, Income Tax Building, Jail Bachhrawan, Raebareli- Road, Raebareli-229001. 229301. Pan:Blbpk4834R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250(4)Section 254(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69

grounds of appeal as well as the statement of facts filed by the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order on the merits of the grounds of appeal. He dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner, taking adverse view of non- compliance ... want of prosecution. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has statutory duty, prescribed u/s 250(4) & 250(6) of the Act to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case whether or not there was any representation from the assessee’s side. The order

Absar Ahmad, Sitapur vs. ITO, Sitapur

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

ITA 471/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow19 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2015-16 Absar Ahmad V. The Income Tax Officer S/O Ameer Ahmad Sitapur H.No.131, Godhana Anshik Sidhauli, Sitapur Tan/Pan:Akapa4017F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

part of the assessee. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to restore the file to the NFAC with a direction to pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law and after providing proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case. We also caution the assessee to fully comply

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1266/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Rs.14451062 from the pharmacy Unit u/s 11(4A). The appellant was running the pharmacy unit on a commercial scale. The AO in a speaking order proved that the assessee was carrying out its activities like a business venture and hence the action of the AO in assessing the net surplus

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1265/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Rs.14451062 from the pharmacy Unit u/s 11(4A). The appellant was running the pharmacy unit on a commercial scale. The AO in a speaking order proved that the assessee was carrying out its activities like a business venture and hence the action of the AO in assessing the net surplus

Vikas Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-55(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1464/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Vimal Kumarvikas Sharma Acit Vs. Prop. M/S. Pandit Homes, Circle – 55(1), M/S. Pandit Cements & New Delhi M/S. Shri Bankey Bihari Builders & Developers, 15/103, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad – 201 012 Pan No. Avjps 8784 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate & Shri Tarun Chanana, Advocate Revenue By Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 80C

interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order after given the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 10. In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

M/S Punjab Tourism Developmenet Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

case, the appellate order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh under section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses ... case, the appellate order of the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh under section 250(6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding an addition on account of expenses incurred on rectification / modification

M/S Punjab Tourism Developmenet Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

case, the appellate order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh under section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses ... case, the appellate order of the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh under section 250(6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding an addition on account of expenses incurred on rectification / modification

M/S Punjab Tourism Developmenet Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

case, the appellate order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh under section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses ... case, the appellate order of the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh under section 250(6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding an addition on account of expenses incurred on rectification / modification

M/S Punjab Tourism Developmenet Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

case, the appellate order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh under section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses ... case, the appellate order of the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh under section 250(6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding an addition on account of expenses incurred on rectification / modification

Vijay Vinod Duragkar, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 339/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

assessment is further illegal as the same has been completed without properly disposing of the objections of the Appellant vide a speaking order as mandatorily required under law. 23.8. The Appellant invites your honours kind attention to the order of the AO wherein the AO has allegedly tried to dispose ... appreciate have been done without objectively considering all the objections of the Appellant and which can at best be deemed to be a non-speaking order. 9 Vijaya Vinod Duragkar 23.9. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court IOT Infrastructure and Eng. Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT

Megapix Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1151/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1151/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Megapix Vanijya Pvt. Ltd……………………………………………..…..……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aahcm6624J] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata............…....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 26.09.2012 By Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.4,540/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Due To Large Share Premium Received By The Assessee During The Relevant Financial Year. Consequently, The Assessing Officer Issued Notices U/S 142(1) & 142(2) Of The Act Requesting For Furnishing Requisite Information. In Response To The Notices, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appeared Before The Assessing Officer & Provided Primary Details Including An Explanation That The Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Share Trading. Upon

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

assessee but simply upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in mechanical manner. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is a non- speaking order. The same is not sustainable as per law. In this case, the assessee has provided detailed evidences to establish identity and creditworthiness and genuineness

Vijay Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3658/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2016-17 Vijay Kumar, Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), 419, Competent House, Ghaziabad F.14, Connaught Place, Cgo Complex Ii, Ghaziabad New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Adppk1375C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 48Section 54

served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CITA(A) with the directions to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 6. In the result

Vag Infotech, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-53(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3572/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2013-14 Vag Infotech, Vs. Acit, Circle 53(1), D-42, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 049 (Pan: Aaafv2681C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 45Section 50C

dispute are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh by passing a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 3 | P a g e 5. In the result

Talha Khan, Mohalla Afganan Po Amroha vs. Addl.Jt.Dy.ACIT.NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3419/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2017-18 Talha Khan, Vs. National Faceless Mohalla Afganan Po Amroha, Appeal Centre (Nfac), Amroha-244221 Delhi Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Ejspk7379K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Vibhu Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271FSection 69A

issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh by passing a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 5. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed