“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

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Magnifique Gems Private Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 458/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.389 & 458/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Magnifique Gems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 105, Rajshree Building, Maniyara 1(1)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Sheri Na Naka,Mahidharpura, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395003. Civil Hospital, Surat-395001

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

assessee on the same day. Thereafter the assessee filed its objection against the re-opening and the same was disposed off by passing speaking order date 21.08.2018. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 15.09.2018 calling certain details. In response to the notice issued

Magnifique Gems Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 389/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result ground no.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and grounds no

ITA 730/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.730 & 731/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) National Stock Exchange Vs. Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) Of India Limited Room No. 126, 1 St Floor, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aaykar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra M.K. Road, East, Mumbai – 400051 Churchgate -400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacn1797L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Jehangir Mistri Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Srinivasu

matter back to the ld. CIT(A) with a specific direction to deal with all the contentions of the assessee by way of a speaking order in accordance with the law. The assessee has also referred the relevant part of the ITAT order ... Learned counsel has, even before us, made these legal submissions which the CIT(A) had no occasion to deal with by way of a speaking order. In this view of the matter, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with

The Pr CIT Circle 5 (1), Bhopal vs. M/S M.P.Warehousing & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal

ITA 143/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)

facts and circumstances might differ for year to year and CIT(A) has not stated facts and, therefore, has passed a non-speaking order without deciding or bringing the facts on record to support the contention of allowing assessee’s claim. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

Viral Lavjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat

In the result, assessee`s appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 450/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.450/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Viral Lavjibhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-18, Naginawadi Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat, Aaykar Sumul Dairy Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. Surat – 395004. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alvpp2897E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2023

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Counsel that reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is bad-in-law, we note that NFAC/ld CIT(A) has passed a speaking order upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings, the findings of NFAC/ld CIT(A) are reproduced below: “17.0 Ground No.1: The ground is related to the technical issue

Laxman Mahadev Patil (Legal Heir Hemant Laxman Patil), Laxman Patil House vs. Income Tax Officer 41(2)(3) Earlier Assessed With ITO 29(2)(2)., Kautilya Bhavan

The appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 2555/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. PaiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 55A

been issued in the name of a deceased person and, therefore, the consequential proceedings are invalid. Even on the said issue, there is no speaking order by the CIT(A), which is a requirement of Section 250(6) of the Act. 7. Thus, in the interest of justice and fair

Vantage Integrated Security Solutions Pvt Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4987/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usvantage Integrated Security Vs. Acit Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 26(1) B-11, Sec-07, Noida, Up New Delhi Pan No. Aaacu 1717 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kamal Kishan Jetely, Adv. & Shri S. M. Manjar, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2023

detailed objection to the notice of reopening to the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer has not disposed off the said objection by a speaking order. The assessee also raised this issue before Learned CIT(A), however, Learned CIT(A) was not convinced. He rejected the assessee’s submissions, which ... been brought to the knowledge of the appellant and cognizance of his submissions in this regard has been taken. So, the necessity of a speaking order is done away with. Here, the order of the Apex Court in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd 256 Taxman 59 is also

Padma Dhurway, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

ITA 272/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Padma Dhurway, Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001. Pan : Aarpd5814C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

submissions. Whether the statute specifically provides for it or not, in our considered view, the need for disposal of objections by way of a speaking order has to be read into it as the Assessing Officer CPC, while disposing of the objections raised by the assessee, is performing a quasi

Hindustan Epc Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7112/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs Vedanta Ltd reported in 448 ITR 732 (SC) dated 12.9.2022 was disposed off by a speaking order by dismissing the same by holding as under:- “9. Now, insofar as the third issue with respect to the non-deduction of TDS payment

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6985/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-3, Surat vs. M/S Charu Jewels, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 74/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.74/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S Charu Jewels, Central Circle-3, 5/983, Charushila Jadakhadi, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfc8298F (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

authorities, therefore genuineness of the sale should not be doubted. Therefore, ld Counsel contended that ld CIT(A) has passed the speaking order considering all aspects and facts of the assessee, hence such speaking order may be upheld. 11. We have heard both sides in detail and also perused

S K Kabra & Company, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 502/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.502/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) S. K. Kabra & Company, The Ito, Vs. 101, “Kauttilya” Plot No.327, Ward-1(2)(1), Opp. Noble Paper, Khatodara, Surat Surat – 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfs6674D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘The Nfac’), Delhi, Dated 17.05.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Central Processing Centre (In Short ‘Cpc’), Bengaluru, U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 11.07.2018. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Is Barred By Limitation By Six (6) Days. Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted A Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. The Contents Of The Said Petition Are Reproduced Below:

Section 143(1)

case, in the interest of justice, we 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, we deem

Avaya India Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 702/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nageshwar Rao; &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)

Cyber Media”) as comparable company to the Appellant without verifying the persistent loss filter as applied by the Ld. TPO and without passing a speaking order as directed by Hon’ble DRP. 3.2.2 That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO, in particular, erred ... India Exposition”) as comparable company to the Appellant without verifying the employee cost filter as applied by the Ld. TPO and without passing a speaking order as directed by Hon’ble DRP. 3.2.3 That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO / Hon’ble DRP have

Sumitomo Corporation India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi

In the result Appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 486/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

basis of FAR analysis of the assessee and decide afresh by giving cogent reasons. The DRP is further directed to pass a speaking order on those comparable after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground No. 8.2 & 8.3 are allowed for statistical purpose. 16. Ground

R.L. Agarwal HUF, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT Circle-2, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1857/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, Adv.; &

Section 143(3)

disposed off the appeal of the assessee. I also notice that the ld. CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without passing a speaking order on merits of the addition/disallowance made in the assessment order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this appeal is restored to the file

Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 194/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 194/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ib, Corporate House, Indamara, Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacca2881J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bikram Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Dated 28.03.2023 For A.Y.2018-19. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax—Raipur-1 Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre (Neac) On 01.03.2021 As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As The Order Was Passed Without Making Any Enquiry On The Issues Of Applicability Of Section 14A Of The I. T. Act, 1961. The Assessment Order Passed By The Neac Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Therefore The Order U/S 263 Passed By The Ld. Cit Is Unjustified, Unwarranted & Uncalled. 2. The Assessee Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 801ASection 80I

convincing by the Ld. Pr. CIT, he set-aside the order of A.O to his file for making necessary enquiries and to pass a speaking order after proving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the said order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sicom Limited, Mumbai City

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

ITA 2034/MUM/2023[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalita Nos. 2034 & 2035/Mum/2023 (A.Y:1999-2000 &1998-99) Dcit, Circle-3(3)(1), Vs. M/S Sicom Limited, Room No.609, Solitaire Corporate Aayakar Bhavan, Park, Building No.4, M.K. Road, Guru Nanak Marg, Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Midc S.O, Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs5524J Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 21Section 244ASection 244A(1)

Book): "Accordingly the AO is directed to revisit the entire computation of interest under Section 244A in this case by passing a detailed and speaking order and after duly considering the above or any other judgment on this subject. These grounds of appeal are therefore technically allowed." 1. In view ... 244A(1) of the Act as per law, upto the actual date of disbursement, by applying the same principle & rationale and pass a speaking order. ITA.No.2034&2035/Mum/2023 CO.No72&73/Mum/2023. M/s. Sicom Ltd. Mumbai. The grounds of appeal are, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes Ground 5 &6-Non-granting

DCIT, International Taxation Circle-Gurugram, Gurugram vs. Vikas Arora, Gurugram

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2335/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

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

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the case on merits through a speaking order? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the submissions of the assessee without any supporting

Sunil Kumar, Rohtak vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3560/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Navin Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

circumstances, is under bounden duty to take into account the perspective of the assessee on such fresh material and is required to pass a speaking order thereon. The Pr.CIT thus is not expected to sit solely in the capacity of revisionary authority qua the new fact coming to the light ... Section 263 of the Act. 10. Looking from any angle, the directions towards verification of impugned transactions without observance of natural justice and without speaking order on the point based on some degree of inquiry by Pr.CIT himself, are unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed

Hema Engineering Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5424/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: the Tribunal, therefore, we are compelled to decide the present Appeal after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative and on perusing the material on record.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Hema Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT was issued and served upon the appellant and the objections were duly disposed of by passing a speaking order vide letter dated 07.09.2015. The appellant has stated that during the year, the company has shown a profit of Rs.73,46,240/- from derivative