“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

Kuldip Ramesh Baagwe, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pune

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

ITA 1113/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1113/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Kuldip Ramesh Baagwe, Ito, Ward 6(3), Pune 592 Kasewadi, Bhavani Peth, Pune-411042, Maharashtra Vs Pan-Aivpb7422J Appellant Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69

aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and pass speaking order on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents / evidence

Balveer Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(3) Jaipur, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 183/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Gupta (Adv.)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Incometax/Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi. "Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income escaping assessment General (Speaking order) - Assessment year 2013-14-Assessee-company purchased a land for consideration of certain amount and had filed return of income as NIL Assessment in case ... instant writ petition on ground that impugned order was passed without disposing of objections raised by it against reopening of assessment by passing a speaking order It was noted that assesseee had participated in reassessment proceedings pursuant to reopening notice issued against it knowing well about reasons for reopening

Kirit Parasmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3774/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

unless warranted by compelling reasons. 7.1. Since the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for meritorious adjudication by passing a speaking order in terms of our observations made hereinabove, we are not expressing any views on the merits of the case so as to limit

Kirit Parasmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3772/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Ahmed P. Surani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 361/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 68

However, the fact remains that all the documentary evidences are in favour of assessee and learned CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned and speaking order and we do not find any infirmity in the same. 12. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Antony Motors P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee & revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 724/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Antony Motors Pvt. Income-Tax- 15(1)(1) Ltd. Room No.517, A-390/391, 5Th Floor, Midc, Ttc, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Zone, Maharshi Karve Road, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aaaca4719K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

reopen an assessment and the assessee would be entitled to file its objections. The Assessing Officer would then dispose of the objections by a speaking order. Thus one more safe guard was provided by Hon‘ble Supreme Court to ensure that there is proper application of mind before an assessment

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Antony Motors P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee & revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 723/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Antony Motors P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee & revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 722/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

Consulting Engineering Services (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 3515/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254

consider it just and expedient to restore the entire matter back to the file of CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order on the points raised by the assessee after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Modinagar Rolls Pvt. Ltd., Modinagar vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1106/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37

deemed expedient to support the assessee to adhere such evidences as deemed expedient to support the returned income. Ld.CIT(A) Ld.CIT(A) shall pass speaking order in accordance with law. shall pass speaking order in accordance with law. 9. Grounds raised by the assessee are Grounds raised by the assessee

Noida Special Economic Zone Athority, Noida vs. DCIT Circle-2, Noida

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

ITA 6047/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) keeping in mind the outcome of quantum appeal which led to penalty in question. The CIT(A) shall pass speaking order after giving opportunity. Matter is thus set aside for adjudication by the CIT(A) in accordance with law. 3 5. In the result, appeal

Ap Estate LLP, Mumbai vs. Add/JCIT(A)-2, Delhi

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4230/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 194JSection 201Section 234E

remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to see all the aspects afresh and pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity to the appellant. 3 AP Estates LLP 7. The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Manojkumar Madangopal Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 1105/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 112(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 6Section 6(1)(c)

present appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) (the 'CIT (AY) erred on fects and in law in not passing a speaking order and has dismissed the grounds raised by the Appellent without providing adequate reasons. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred on facts

Sequel Logistics Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1114/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 135Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 80G

Appellant for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 5. The Impugned Order dated 27th March 2024 passed by the Respondent is a non speaking order since the Respondent has failed to provide proper reasoning for non-consideration the precedents relied upon by the Appellant. 6. The Respondent has erroneously directed

Sajid Dastagir Sayyed, Latur vs. Ward 1 Latur, Latur

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

ITA 1181/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 69A

restore the matter back to his file to adjudicate the issue(s) raised by the assessee on merits afresh and pass speaking order on merit after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/evidence

Vaidyanathan Kalaivani, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1542/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Niay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 56(2)

Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 asking to reinstate her. 7. On hearing the entire plea, the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, passed a speaking order in T.SE No. 1/4/2014, dated 2nd day of April, 2014, wherein the Special Deputy Commissioner, had set aside the order of termination issued

Smt. Geetha Chukkaluru, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bellary

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

ITA 1798/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. (Vice President), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sri.T.Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

grounds urged. 4. The impugned order being cryptic in nature and dismissed solely on account of the alleged non-prosecution and without passing speaking order in respect of each of the grounds urged as mandated us 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income

Amazon Web Services India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2706/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 Amazon Web Services India Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Delhi-1, Block-3, 14Th Floor, Unit Delhi Nos. 1401 To 1421, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New International Trade Delhi Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 (Pan: Aajca9880A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Ms. DeepashreeFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

PCIT in undue haste without: (a) considering the submissions filed; and (b) first disposing off the legal objections by passing a separate speaking order, is illegal, bad in law and liable to be quashed/ set aside. 4. That the PCIT erred on facts and in law in exercising revisionary powers ... transactions. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to TPO for giving a finding on correctness of value of these other international transactions by a speaking order. 2. Further for marketing support services also TPO has accepted the TNMM method as the most appropriate method, while not giving a finding

Faryad Ali, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1076/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2012-13 Faryad Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O Sanjeev Anand & Ward 1(2), Associates, Cgo Complex, 136, Navyug Market, Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad, Up-201001 Ghaziabad - 201002 (Pan: Amapa2890A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 144

issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the AO with the directions to consider the same afresh and pass a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 7. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Halwasiya Properties Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Lucknow

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

ITA 204/LKW/2022[F.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Halwasiya Properties Private Income Tax Officer-3(5), Lucknow Limited, Halwasiya Court, Vs. New, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow- 226001 226001 Pan:Aaach9708D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Devashish Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act Passed On 23.09.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Is Without Proper Opportunity & Contrary To The Principles Of Audi Alteram Partem And, Therefore, The Same Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Set Aside. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Cit(A), Nfac Is Not Justified In Treating The Loan Of Rs.50,00,000/- Taken By The Appellant As Fictitious Loan. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,25,000/- For Alleged Accommodation Entry Of Loan @ 2.5% & Subjecting To Tax In The Hands Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. Devashish Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gayasuddin, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

event of the assessee filing any objections to the same within a given time frame, he shall dispose such objections by way of a speaking order, before proceeding further with the assessment. The ld. AO, thereafter, may pass a final order after considering the submissions of the assessee