← 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

Mohammad Zaki, Allhabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Allahabad

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

ITA 81/ALLD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 250(6)

appellate order without providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant assessee and in a summary. 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

Amit Kumar, Begusarai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 410/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support

Shekhar Narayan, Patna vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 355/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 13Section 194Section 194JSection 250Section 44A

under the head Salaries. We also note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot ... dispose the assessee's appeal merely by holding that the Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference. Hence, in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to explain

Shekhar Narayan, Patna vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 354/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 13Section 194Section 194JSection 250Section 44A

under the head Salaries. We also note that in Ajji Basha Vs. CIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 348 (Madras) it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot ... dispose the assessee's appeal merely by holding that the Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference. Hence, in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to explain

Ram Chander, Sitapur vs. The ITO, Sitapur

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

ITA 823/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 253(3)

aside and issues in dispute are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo speaking order on merits I.T.A. No.823/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 of the case in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee

Rajiv Shukla, Lucknow vs. The ITO-3(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 809/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 69

that the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed because of non prosecution. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal without passing a speaking order on the I.T.A. No.809/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 merits of the disputed addition amounting to Rs.2,58,000/-. In view of the foregoing

Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5) Now ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1061/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Ito Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Vs. Ward-1(2)(5). Patel Now Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 86,Kanha Residency Vadodara – 390 007 Kalali Road, Kalali Ahmedabad – 390 012 [Pan : Aigpp 8415 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee Represented By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 54BSection 54F

Appeals) shall examine all the evidences on record, including the additional documents filed by the assessee before the Tribunal and pass a speaking order after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Mihijam Educational Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2074/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

restore the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order on the grounds raised before him. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further

Sp Chidambaram, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ward 1, Kanchipuram

ITA 3934/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3934/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sp Chidambaram 21-A/6, Vallal Pachiyappan Street, Kancheepuram-631501 Tamil Nadu [Pan: Aachc 3681 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Ito, Ward (1), Kancheepuram, 96, Munuswamy Mudaliar Avenue, Kancheepuram-631501 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. K. Subash Anbarasu, Adv प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 28.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.12.2025 For Ay 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, We Notice That The Assessee By The Ground No.4 Challenges The Jao Jurisdiction To Issue Notice U/S148 Dated 29.03.2024 Of The Act. :: 2 ::

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand ... inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order

Manackraj Kamaraj, Ambur vs. ITO, Non Corpate Ward 11(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2541/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2541/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Manackraj Kamaraj Ito Ncw 11(2) No. 23/10, Ramar Koil Street, Chennai Ambur-635 802. Tamil Nadu [Pan: Alzpk 7476 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 156Section 68

claim that the payments were made on behalf of relatives/friends and reimbursed, on the basis of confirmations and bank evidence. AO will pass a speaking order in accordance with law, without being influenced by earlier observations. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Aanya Realtors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7353/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: The Learned Cit(A) On Account Of Practical Difficulties. It Was Submitted That The Office Of The Assessee Had Been Taken Over & The Lender Institution, In Relation To The Real Estate Project, Had Been Handed Over To Another Developer, And, Therefore, The Requisite Records Were Not Readily Available. It Was Further Submitted That Before The Learned Cit(A), A Request Was Made Seeking Additional Time Of 21 Days For Filing Written Submissions & Evidences; However, Before The Expiry Of The Said Period, The Learned Cit(A) Proceeded To Pass The Impugned Order.

Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 68

shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the appeal afresh, in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order. We clarify that all issues are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits of the additions at this stage. 4 Aanya

O.K. Auto Components Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 3584/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

received from the AO containing disallowance of Rs. 5,51,903/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act without passing a speaking order. It is alleged that the said adjustment was beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of the Act and was without jurisdiction and void ab initio ... alleged variance as per Tax Audit Report r/w schedule Ol of the Income Tax Return (point 6k) and that too mechanically without passing any speaking order. 4-That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed

Allen Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. DCIT Central Circle, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2355/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Grover, Shri Viral Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

2355/DEL/2025 Allen Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in not passing a speaking order against the submissions of the appellant. As such, the order passed uls 263 is void ab-initio. The action

P N Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2410/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2410/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2023-24 P. N. Enterprise The Ito बनाम/ E-501, 42 Park View Ward-4(2)(1) V/S. Nr. Kalhar Exotica Ahmedabad – 380 015 Science City, Sola Ahmedabad – 380 060 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aawfp 9588 L (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Hetvi Shah, Ca On Behalf Of M.S. Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14/10/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (A) Is Against Law, Equity & Justice. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal For Want Of Appeal Filed Belatedly. P N Enterprise Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2023-24 2

For Appellant: Ms. Hetvi Shah, CA on behalf of M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 80G

also hereby condoned. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits by way of a speaking order, irrespective of the fact that there was a delay in filing the appeal before him, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee

Mr. Ramesh Prabhakar Patil, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2, Pandharpur

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

ITA 906/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist (Through Virtual)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

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

Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-(25)(1), Circle 1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2549/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1971/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 R.B. Diamond House, Pne-C-1, Range-25, Opposite Manohar Sarees Circle-1, Jalgaon Baliram Peth, Jalgaon- Vs. 425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aaifr9130Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2549/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Circle- Private Limited, 1, Jalgaon 288, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon- Vs. 425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aadcr7439N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Sanjay T. Tupe Department By: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 28-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- The Captioned Appeals By Two Different Assessee’S Are Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.06.2025 & 14.08.2025 Pertaining To A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. TupeFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 272A(1)(d)

effective issues raised in the instant two appeals to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act after duly considering the submissions of the assessee’s. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall

Yogesh Jagannath Satav, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-12(4), Pune

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

ITA 2022/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2022/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Yogesh Jagannath Satav, The Income Tax Officer, Fadai Chowk, Nagar Road, Ward – 12(4), Pune Wagholi, Taluka-Haveli, Vs. Pune-412207 Pan : Bbtps3761B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 28-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.06.2025 Of The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai [“Addl./Jcit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) (National Faceless Assessment Centre) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Appellant Even Though Form-5 Under Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Was Not Issued The Appellant By Jurisdictional Commissioner Of Income Tax. The Appellant Prays That Appeal May Be Restored Back To File To Of Cit(A) For Hearing The Appeal On Merits. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed Under Section 250 By Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Dismissing The Appeal Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principal Of Natural Justice. The Appellant Prays For Just, Fair & Appropriate Relief. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Not Passing A Speaking Order On The Grounds Raised By The Appellant Before Nafc. The Appellant Prays For Just, Fair & Appropriate Relief. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appellant Prays That Appeal Deemed To Be Withdrawn, May Be Revived.

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

fair and appropriate relief. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) NFAC erred in not passing a speaking order on the grounds raised by the appellant before NAFC. The appellant prays for just, fair and appropriate relief. 4. On the facts and circumstances ... aside the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and to 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

R B Diamond House, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-1, Range -25, Circle -1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1971/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1971/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 R.B. Diamond House, Pne-C-1, Range-25, Opposite Manohar Sarees Circle-1, Jalgaon Baliram Peth, Jalgaon- Vs. 425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aaifr9130Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2549/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Circle- Private Limited, 1, Jalgaon 288, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon- Vs. 425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aadcr7439N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Sanjay T. Tupe Department By: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 28-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- The Captioned Appeals By Two Different Assessee’S Are Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.06.2025 & 14.08.2025 Pertaining To A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. TupeFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 272A(1)(d)

effective issues raised in the instant two appeals to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act after duly considering the submissions of the assessee’s. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall

Junnar Taluka Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Pathsantha, Pune vs. Pne-W-59(1), Pune

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

ITA 1659/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2021-22 Junnar Taluka Prathamik Pne-W-59(1), Pune Shikshak Sahakari Patsanstha, Junner, Vs. Junnar-410502 Pune Maharashtra Pan-Aaaaj3324K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: None Department By: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 28-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02-02-2026 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Framed U/S 250 Of The Act, Dated 10.03.2025 For A.Y. 2021-22 Which Is Arising Out Of Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 05.12.2022. 2. Registry Has Informed That There Is Delay Of 45 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit Is Placed On Record & On Going Through The Same, We Find That The Delay Is Not Intentional. Therefore In The Larger Interest Of Justice & Placing Reliance

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

placed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A). We also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Further assessee is required to update its latest

Ritu Kalpesh Hiran, Satara vs. ITO, Satara

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

ITA 1649/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69A

NFAC and restore the same back to his file with a direction to adjudicate the issues raised by the assessee afresh by passing a speaking order as per fact and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit