← 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

Shri Bheru Lal Garg, Udaipur vs. ITO, TDS, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 159/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 206CSection 206C(7)Section 250Section 271C

limitation. Both the legal and the factual grounds are challenged before the ld. CIT(A). But the ld. CIT(A) had passed a speaking order by considering all the grounds of the assessee and upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

Shri Babubhai Naranbhai Sakhiya, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45(3)Section 54B

that the land was held for more than two years. After considering the above submission, the ld. Pr.CIT set aside assessment order by a speaking order observing as follows: “…..6. The assessee's submission has been carefully examined. In para 3 of the submission the assessee has contended that

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Faridabad vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the grounds raised are sustained and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Pr. Cit, 200, Sec.-7A, Faridabad. Faridabad, Haryana. 121 001 Pan: Aalpg5795M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. Pcit) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 28.11.2017 Passed U/S. 147/148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward 1(1), Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. At The Outset, It Was Pointed Out By Ld. Ar That An Application For Condonation Of Delay Of 324 Days Has Been Filed Supported With An Affidavit. On Hearing Upon The Same, It Comes Up That The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Upto 11.05.2020 & Due To Covid-19 Restrictions, In View Of The Directions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.03/2020, The Period Between 15.03.2020 & 28.02.2022 Has To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Calculation Of Limitation & In The Light Of The Aforesaid, The Delay Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

principal of natural justice as the notice for hearing was never served to the Appellant 13. The order passed by Respondent is not a speaking order and hence should be quashed 14. The Respondent has erred in seek addition of whole amount of 1NR 1124000 cash deposited as income

Dlf Home Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 7(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1495/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 147Section 148

/147 of the Act, without disposing of the objections of the assessee to the reason recorded u/s 147 of the Act, by a speaking order, which is completely in disregarded to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. Income Tax Officer

Shri Lokendra Panwar, Indore vs. The PCIT (1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Lokendra Panwar Pcit (1) 8 B Chandra Nagar, A.B. Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Achpp2073R Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57(1)

issue for which the limited scrutiny under CASS was taken up. Thus, Ld. DR has submitted that the order of the AO is non-speaking order and nothing is mentioned about the record which was filed by the assessee or examined by the AO on this issue. Even the assessee

Ashwinbhai Labhubhai Jodhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 495/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat14 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.495/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Ashwinbhai Labhubhai Jodhani, Vs. The Ito, 201, A. V. R. Complex, Ward – 3(3)(1), Shantivan Society, L. H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeipj0907K (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 14/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem

Shailaja Lalit Kotian, Mumbai vs. Central Processing Centrem Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2960/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2960/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shailaja Lalit Kotian बिधम/ Central Processing B/25, 6Th Floor, Namaskar Center, Income Tax Vs. Maas Chs, Poonam Nagar, Department, Bengalure Mumbai-400093. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Room No.615, Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agipk3192M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jeetan Nagpal/Shri Sujit Kotian/Shri Ali Sayyed Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 29.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appellate Order Dated 29.06.2023 [‘The Impugned Order’] Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘The Hon'Ble Cit(A)’] Is Based Upon Conjectures, Surmises & Assuming Incorrect Facts & Therefore, Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Jeetan Nagpal/Shri SujitFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 199Section 234A

contention and 8 A.Y. 2022-23 Shailaja Lalit Kotian thereafter, the Assessing Officer will examine and verify the documents and thereafter pass a speaking order accordingly. 9. No other grounds have been argued before us. However, we note that the assessee by raising ground no. 5 has assailed the action

Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 629/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69ASection 80C

fact to confirm AO’s assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act. Without rebutting appellant objection and without passing speaking order as required under the law and as per the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GNK DRIVESHAFT. 4. Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred ... 147/148 of the Act. However, I note that Assessing Officer did not dispose of the objection raised by the assessee, by way of passing speaking order, in writing and therefore re-assessment proceedings should be quashed on this count only. The objections raised by the assessee, during the assessment stage

Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 628/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69ASection 80C

fact to confirm AO’s assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act. Without rebutting appellant objection and without passing speaking order as required under the law and as per the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GNK DRIVESHAFT. 4. Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred ... 147/148 of the Act. However, I note that Assessing Officer did not dispose of the objection raised by the assessee, by way of passing speaking order, in writing and therefore re-assessment proceedings should be quashed on this count only. The objections raised by the assessee, during the assessment stage

Nipro Corporation, Japan, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1867/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Nipro Corporation, Japan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Nipro India Corporation Pvt. Income Tax , Ltd. International Taxation, Plot No.3-1, Circle 3(3)(1) Room No.1630, 16 Th Floor, Air Midc, Kesurdi, Khandala, Tal, Khandala, Satara, India Building, Mumbai-412802 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecn4534F

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Phadke, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92(3)Section 92C

remit the matter to the file of the assessing officer for adjudication on this point, and to this limited extent, by way of a speaking order, in accordance with the law dealing with all the contention of the assessee. Ordered, accordingly.” 024. On careful consideration of the decision of learned

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs. Rajsway Direct Trading Private Limited, Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 257/RPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 257/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Rajsway Direct Trading Private Limited, 1154, Ward No.12, Minimata Nagar, Talapara, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Aahcr9787K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

case and in law, the Id. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in deleting the additions of Rs. 3,87,04,969/- without passing a speaking order without hearing the Assessing Officer or even calling for a remand report ? 4. Any other grounds as may be pressed at the time

Xavient Software Solutions India P Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 3 Noida, Noida

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

ITA 1914/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A). Ld. Cit (A) Noted That Several Dates Have Been Fixed But The Assessee Has Not Appeared. Hence, The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal For Non-

For Appellant: Shri Sharendra Batra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DR
Section 251

dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. Hence, we remit the issue to the file of ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) shall pass speaking order after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC -2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 399/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

jurisdiction to reassess the income of appellant under the provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The humble appellant submits that a speaking order ensure that the principles of natural justice are followed by the authority. To give reasons for the decision is a requirement of the principle

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC-2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

jurisdiction to reassess the income of appellant under the provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The humble appellant submits that a speaking order ensure that the principles of natural justice are followed by the authority. To give reasons for the decision is a requirement of the principle

Macro Township Pvt Ltd, 288-289 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur vs. DCIT CC -2 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 153CSection 250Section 69

jurisdiction to reassess the income of appellant under the provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The humble appellant submits that a speaking order ensure that the principles of natural justice are followed by the authority. To give reasons for the decision is a requirement of the principle

Ashish Shivhare, Jabalpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)-I, Bhopa;, Bhopal

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

ITA 50/JAB/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 50/Jab/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ashish Shivhare, Vs The Acit, Central-I, D-10, Adarsh Nagar, Narmada Road, Bhopal Jabalpur 482001 (Mp) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Arups 6450 P Assessee By : Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.12.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR

Ashish Shivhare being remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall comply to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) from time

Satinder Paul Gupta (Through Sahil Gupta, Legal Heir), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-6(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 2977/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice C.V. Bhadang & Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Blea.Yr. :2015-16 Satinder Paul Gupta Vs. Dcit, Circle 6(2), (Through Sahil Gupta, Legal New Delhi Heir), House No. 11, Road No. 63, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (Pan: Aappg2434D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Department By Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

shall consider the calculation of interest u/s. 234B and 234C as canvassed by the assessee in his application dated 16.11.2017 and thereafter pass a speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in support of his application. 10. Resultantly, for statistical

ACIT, Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. Shri Averel Gangadhar Shetty, Chandrapur

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSES

ITA 193/NAG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Parth Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 193/Nag/2017 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr Abhay Agrawal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Kailash Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

with a direction to deal therewith in accordance with law de- nova after according not more than three opportunities and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 8. In result, the appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSES. U/r 34 of ITAT Rules, order pronounced

Xavient Software Splutions India Pvt Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 3 Noida, Noida

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

ITA 2197/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahyash. C. N. Prasadita No. 2197/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Xavient Software Solutions India Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., 54, Nsez Phase-2, Circle-3, Noida-201301 Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacx0465F Assessee By : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.11.2023 Order Per Sh. Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 10.06.2023 & Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Although, The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds. The Ld. Counsel Of The Assessee At The Beginning Pressed For The Ground No. 1 Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 251

appeal for non-prosecution. Hence, we remit the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) shall pass speaking order after giving an opportunity to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the quantum adjustments in assessment under appeal before him after hearing the parties per a speaking order. We decide accordingly. 8. In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed. Order pronounced on November