“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

Satya Venkata Chaitanya Mandala, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 593/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. A.R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

record. After considering the documents filed by the assessee and the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall pass a detailed speaking order dealing with the contentions of the assessee. We have not adjudicated the other grounds on merits as we are setting aside the orders passed

Chetan Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 576/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Chetan Agarwal, Vs. The Acit, H.No.3-5-141/3/3, Central Circle – 1(1), Shanti Villa, Street No.3, Hyderabad. Eden Garden, Ramkote, Telangana – 500001. Pan : Armpa4651L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayana Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.AR

Section 132Section 144Section 69Section 69A

record. After considering the documents filed by the assessee and the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall pass 4 a detailed speaking order dealing with the contentions of the assessee. We have not adjudicated the other grounds on merits as we are setting aside the orders passed

Rajeswari Konduri, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 563/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Rajeswari Konduri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. R/O. Plot No.23, Hacp Colony, Near Kharkhana, Secunderabad, Telangana – 500056. Pan : Aaypk8689B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Abhiroop Bhargav, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Abhiroop Bhargav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 148

record. After considering the documents filed by the assessee and the submissions made by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) shall pass a detailed speaking order dealing with the contentions of the assessee. We have not adjudicated the other grounds on merits as we are setting aside the orders passed

Sri Sarada Vidya Peetham, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 456/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Sarada Vidya Peetham, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 15(2), Sy.No.295A, Anantharam Hyderabad. Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District. Telangana – 508116. Pan : Aagts3296J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2024 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

record. After considering the documents filed by the assessee and the submissions made by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) shall pass a detailed speaking order dealing with the contentions of the assessee. It is made clear that in case, the assessee fails to appear 6 before the ld.CIT

Swamina International Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1436/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

facts and circumstances, we restore the matter in the instant appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh to pass a speaking order after considering the submission made by the assessee for which reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided. The assessee also directed to remain

Dy, Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glint Infraporjects Private .Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee, are dismissed

ITA 2166/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Glint Infraprojects Private Tax, Limited Central Circle 3(4), 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No.1915, 19T Floor, Vs. 37-40 Subash Rd, Vile Parle Air India Building, (E), Mumbai-400 057 Nariman Point-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg5620L Co No. 131/Mum/2023 (Arising In Ita No.2166/Mum/2023 For A.Y. 12-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Glint Infraprojects Private Tax, Limited Central Circle 3(4), 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No.1915, 19T Floor, Vs. 37-40 Subash Rd, Vile Parle Air India Building, (E), Mumbai-400 057 Nariman Point-400 021 (Appellant/ Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mirza Azhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02..2024

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

filed return of income on 19th April, 2019, recorded reasons were requested, were provided on 9th July, 2019, against which objections were raised and speaking order was passed on 20th August, 2019, rejecting the same. The Reason as as under :- 05. The reasons recorded are as under:- “1. The assessee ... bank account of the assessee; the return of income remained unscrutinized. The objections were raised by the assessee were also disposed off by speaking order. As at the stage of reopening of assessment ld AO is required to make only prima facie reason to believe that income has exscaped assessment

Hindustan Aqua Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3043/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usm/S. Hindustan Aqua Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Circle-12(1), Market, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaach3298J

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 72

profit 12,53,378/- Nil 4. The ld. AO did not dispose of the objections for reasons recorded by way of a separate speaking order thereby violating the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts Ltd reported

M/S. Eugenics Medi Sciences Pvt. Ld., Lucknow vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Lucknow.

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

ITA 87/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)

learned Sr. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) has passed a speaking order. Accordingly, he submitted, that the assessee did not deserve any relief. (D.2) In reply, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that

Radisson India Charitable Foundation, Gurgaon vs. CIT (Exemptins), Chandigarh

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/CHANDI/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 344 & 345/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Radisson India Charitable Foundation, Vs The Cit (Exemption), 1St Floor, Block-A Chimes, Chandigarh. Plot No.61, Sector 44, Gurgaon. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaetr3910L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal ( Ita 344/Chd/2023) Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Foundation Agitating Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld.Cit(E)’] Dated 29.03.2023 In Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee For Final Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac) (Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act) Whereas Ita No. 345/Chd/2023 Is Relating To Rejection Of The Application Of The Assessee For

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

case. Needless to say that the ld. CIT(E) will duly go through the details and evidences furnished by the assessee and thereafter, pass speaking orders in both the appeals. 5. The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced 27 t h February

Radisson India Charitable Foundation, Gurgaon vs. CIT (Exemptins), Chandigarh

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/CHANDI/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2024AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Rayat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Satara

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

ITA 371/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryrayat Sahakari Sakhar Vs Ito, Ward-1, Satara. Karkhana Ltd., At Post Shewalewadi, Mhaso, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara (Mh) Pan: Aabar 0241 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hanmant Dattatry Dhavle,Ca Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2024 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 31.01.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatry Dhavle,CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT

from the order of NFAC that the submissions of the assessee vis-à-vis facts of the case were not brought out in a speaking order by NFAC, wherein though the process for reaching the said decision by the quasi judicial authority has not been specifically brought ... rights and liabilities have to be adjudicated 2 Rayat Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. afresh through proper examination of facts and coming out with a speaking order by NFAC. In view thereof, we set aside the order of NFAC, without going into the merits of the matter, is remanded

Deepak Dudeja (L/H of Sh. Manohar Lal), Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2839/DEL/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Deepak Dudeja Vs Ito, [Legal Heir Of Late Shri Manohar Ward 2(4), Lal], Cw-66, Malibu Town, Gurgaon. Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. Pan-Acepl00503F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms.Monalisa Maity, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2024

Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

grounds raised by the assessee are restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law by way of a speaking order. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Escorts Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 792/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: PendingITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadm/S. Escorts Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3, 11, Scindia House, New Delhi. Connaught Circus, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaace0074B) Dcit, Central Circle 3, Vs. M/S. Escorts Limited, New Delhi. 11, Scindia House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR

order of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue. We find that ld. CIT (A) has examined in detail and passed an elaborate and speaking order. Hence, we affirm the order of ld. CIT (A) on this issue. Thus, this issue in the cross appeals filed by the assessee

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escorts Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1313/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR

Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Pune vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.564/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, The Principal 3Rd Floor, Panchsil Tech Park, V Commissioner Of Income Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014. S Tax-3, Pune. Pan: Aadcb6018P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala & Ms.Vasanti B.Patel – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 On 14.03.2023. In This Case, Assessment Order Was Passed On 26.02.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. Ground I: Challenging The Validity Of Revision Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act 1.1. The Learned Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Bajaj Housing Finance Limited [A]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

covered in the main provisions of section 36(l)(viia) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has passed a very exhaustive and speaking order and we do not find any infirmity in the same.” 6 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited [A] 4. The ld.AR also submitted that however ITAT Chennai

Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3712/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

matter back to the Assessing Hon’ble High Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for passing the assessment order after a speaking order on Officer for passing the assessment order after a speaking order on Officer for passing the assessment order after a speaking order ... Assessing Officer to dispose off objection raised by the assessee objection raised by the assessee against reopening notice by passing a reasoned and speaking order against reopening notice by passing a reasoned and speaking order against reopening notice by passing a reasoned and speaking order and after giving an opportunity

Sanil Sethu Madhavan, Pune vs. CIT A, Pune

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 1051/PUN/2023[18-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1051/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanil Sethu Madhavan 56/4/1, Kondhwa Khurd Lane-12, Nr Ravi Apts, Pune-411048 Pan : Aucpm6579Q . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Gaurav Singh ‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 23/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1054731019(1) Dt. 31/07/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh ‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(1)(a)

impugned order and remit the file of Ld. NFAC with a direction deal therewith de-nova in accordance with applicable law and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4 Sanil Madhavan Vs CPC, Bengaluru ITA No.1051/PUN/2023

Basuki Vyapaar Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 184/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.184/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Basuki Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaccb6156B) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Kolkata. …………….. Respondent Appearances By: N O N E Appeared For Appellant. Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit (Dr) Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 23.02.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 09.01.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Ito, Ward-8(1) Dated 08.03.2016. 2. When The Case Was Called Or None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. In The Past Also When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 06.06.2023 & 23.08.2023, There Was No Compliance. We Thus

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

appellant in the Memo of Appeal. 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law since the order passed is not any speaking order nor the Ld. CIT(A) has looked into the assessment records and relevant materials to conclude that the order of the Ld. AO cannot

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in 320 ITR ITA Nos.207 to 209/Chny/2020 561. The AO rejected the objections by a speaking order, which is part of assessment order para 3 and main crux of AO for rejecting the objection is that the assessee’s case does

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)