← 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

M/S. Iol Foundation, Ludhiana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandugarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 209/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2023-24

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

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

justice is violated during hearing proceeding. Since the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(E) for meritorious adjudication by passing a speaking order. We are not expressing any views on the merits of the case so as to limit the set aside proceeding before

Mannu Bhatia, Uae vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 819/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Mannu Bhatia Vs. Acit, 1704, Mesk Tower, International Tax Al Marsa Road, Dubai Circle 1(1)(2) Marina, Dubai, Uae Pan : Afnpb4279A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 196A

whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the DRP is unsustainable in law as the same is a non- speaking order and is passed in a mechanical way and hence the assessment order passed in consequence of such directions is also bad in law. Mannu

Amit Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1941/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: the lower authorities and is forming part of the records. It is not in dispute that the services were rendered by the assessee only in Netherlands during the year under consideration. However, the assessee was also sent on deputation to India on behalf of Akzo Netherlands. For administrative convenience, the Amit Jain vs. ACIT Page 3 of 9

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 192Section 9Section 90

submissions of the assessee and hence directed the ld. AO to conduct factual verification of the documents produced by the assessee and pass a speaking order after considering all the documentary evidences. The ld. AO passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w. 144C(13) of the Act repeating

M/S Trimurty Industries, Cuncolim, Salcete vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Margao

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

ITA 397/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Trimurty Industry, Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Plot No. M-20, Cuncolim Margao, Goa. Industrial Estate, Cuncolim, Salcette, Goa. Pan: Aadft 1136 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nagraj Kale, Fca Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals]-1, Panaji, Dated 02.07.2018 For A.Y.2009-10 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Nagraj Kale, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

matter back to his file to adjudicate as per law dealing with the submissions of the assessee specifically and come out with a speaking order complying with the principles of natural justice. The grounds stands allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Gurugram

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

ITA 1523/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

additions made by the AO basis intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. 16.1 That AO has erred in passing a non-speaking order under section 143(3) of the Act and as such no details or findings or reference is mentioned basis which addition is made relying ... direction issued by the DRP in Para 5.9.1 of the Directions issued wherein the AO was directed to consider the facts and pass a speaking order. 9 ITA No.1523/Del./2022 Re: Education Cess 17. That the AO/DRP erred in disallowing the claim of Education Cess amounting

Scorpio Iron Ltd, Panaji vs. JCIT, Range - 1, Panaji

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

ITA 83/PAN/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Scorpio Iron Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, 505 A, Dempo Trade Center, Panaji, Goa. Patto, Panaji, Goa-403 001. Pan: Aahcs 8190 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Badrinath Yamaji Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Panaji, (For Short, ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 11.09.2020 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Badrinath Yamaji

material on record. The process of judicial adjudication requires Quasi-Judicial authority to adjudicate the case on merits and come out with a speaking order. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) was unable to do so because of the evasive nature of the assessee. However, keeping in mind ... along with relevant/ necessary documents to present its case on merits before the ld.CIT(A) and he shall adjudicate the same by passing a speaking order while complying with the principles of natural justice. Issuance of any further notice to assessee is dispensed with. In view of the aforesaid directions

Pentair Water India Private Limited, Verna vs. JCIT, Margao Range, Margao

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

ITA 76/PAN/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Jcit, Margao Range, L-52-55, Verna Industrial Margao, Goa. Estate, Phase-Ii, Verna, Salcette, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8856 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Agrawal, Fca Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Panaji, Dated 16.03.2020 For A.Y.2009-10 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Agrawal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 154Section 234BSection 37Section 40

remand the matter back to his file for re-adjudication as per law complying with the principles of natural justice and come out with speaking order dealing with the submissions placed on record by the assessee and whether there is any issue of double taxation involved, in case

Kamlesh Jethmal Shah, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

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

ITA 368/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.368/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kamlesh Jethmal Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No.P-9/1, Everest Garden, Silvassa, First Floor, B.B.Mall, Vs. Opp. Indian Bank, Naroli Road, Near Civil Court, Tokarkhada, Silvassa-396230 Silvassa-39230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeqps 7259 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Kaushali Shah, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/08/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2023

Section 271(1)(c)

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

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

article 136 of the Constitution. That certainly could not be so when 33 Career Point Limited, Kota. appeal is dismissed though by a non-speaking order. Here the doctrine of merger applies. In that case, the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court or of the Tribunal from ... State of Bihar it has been held by this Court that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that, by necessary implication, the contentions raised in the Special Leave Petition on the merits of the case have been

Arati Behera, Cuttack vs. DCIT Asmnt Circle-2(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 214/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Arati Behera, At: Ranihat Po: Arati Behera, At: Ranihat Po: Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle 2(1), Dcit, Asmnt Circle 2(1), Buxi Bazar, Cuttack Buxi Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aerpm 0403 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 250(6)

merits. We observe that the provisions of section 250(6) are mandatory and it is obligatory for the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order stating points raised in appeals, his decision thereon and reasons for such decisions. The provisions of section 250(6) provide that the appellate order ... reasons for such decision. The underlying rationale of the provision is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. In the instant case, vide the impugned order

M/S Arandi Investment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1707/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

utilize the opportunity of hearing (through video conferencing) in accordance to law. And the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the grounds of appeal after giving proper opportunity to assessee. 3 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Arandi Investment Pvt. Ltd. 4. In the result, the appeal

Shri Amrik Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (4), Mansa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 198/ASR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

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

Section 10Section 154Section 250

Punjab Government has 100% equity. 2. That on the facts and in thecircumstancesof thecase and in law, the learnedC1T(A) has not passed a speaking order. So, his order is liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and in thecircumstancesof thecase and in law, the learnedCIT(A) should

Mesers Arya Model School, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 553/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

strong objection against the submission of the assessee. We remit back the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for passing the speaking order on the ground agitated by the appellant. Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 9. In this appeal

Mesers Arya Model High School, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions), Jalandhar Ward, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 552/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

strong objection against the submission of the assessee. We remit back the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for passing the speaking order on the ground agitated by the appellant. Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 9. In this appeal

M/S Arya Model High School, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 60/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

strong objection against the submission of the assessee. We remit back the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for passing the speaking order on the ground agitated by the appellant. Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 9. In this appeal

M/S Arya Model High School, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 13/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

strong objection against the submission of the assessee. We remit back the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for passing the speaking order on the ground agitated by the appellant. Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 9. In this appeal

Shri Lokeshwar Co-Operative Credit Society Niyamit, Lokapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1 & Tps, Bagalkot

In the result, stay application of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn and that the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/PAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) S.A.No. 05/Pan/2023 & Shri Lokeshwar Co-Operative Vs Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Credit Society Niyamit Bagalkot. Lokapur, Tq. Mudhol, Dist. Bagalkot Pan: Aaals 2253 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Saidappa Gadadi, Ca Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: The Stay Application & The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 23.02.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Saidappa Gadadi, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

appeal in limine. The process of judicial adjudication requires Quasi-Judicial authority to adjudicate the case on merits and come out with a speaking order. Moreover, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and the very fact, the Income Tax Act is welfare legislation; we are of the considered ... this order along with relevant/necessary documents to present its case on merits before the NFAC and it shall adjudicate the same by passing a speaking order while complying with the principles of natural justice. Issuance of any further notice to assessee is dispensed with. In view of the aforesaid directions

Sunadholi Mahila Pattin Souhard Sahakari Ny, Sunadholi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

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

ITA 63/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sunadholi Mahila Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Gokak. Sunadholi, Tal – Gokak, Dist. Belagavi, Karnataka. Pan: Aacas 9316 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sateesh Nadagouda, Ca Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (For Short, ‘Nfac’), Dated 14.12.2021 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Sateesh Nadagouda, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

material on record. The process of judicial adjudication requires Quasi-Judicial authority to adjudicate the case on merits and come out with a speaking order. In the present case, the NFAC was unable to do so because of the evasive nature of the assessee. However, keeping in mind the principles ... order along with relevant/ necessary documents to present its case on merits before the NFAC and it shall adjudicate the same by passing a speaking order while complying with the principles of natural justice. Issuance of any further notice to assessee is dispensed with. In view of the aforesaid directions

M/S Esteem Industries (P) Ltd., Sattari Goa vs. Income Tax, Ward - 2, Margao

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 448/PAN/2018[2009-10 ]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Vic Industries, Vs Ito, Ward-2(5), Plot No.78, Pissurlem Panaji - Goa Industrial Estate, Sattari, Goa. Pan: Aacfv 8626 M Appellant Respondent M/S. Esteem Industries P. Vs Ito, Ward-2, Ltd., Plot No.76-77, Margao - Goa Pissurlem Industrial Estate, Sattari, Goa. Pan: Aaace 9474 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

adjudicate the matter considering the directions of the Tribunal given in its earlier order (supra) and then come out with a speaking order. In view thereof, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for re-adjudication

M/S Vic Industries., Sattari, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (5), Panaji

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 447/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Vic Industries, Vs Ito, Ward-2(5), Plot No.78, Pissurlem Panaji - Goa Industrial Estate, Sattari, Goa. Pan: Aacfv 8626 M Appellant Respondent M/S. Esteem Industries P. Vs Ito, Ward-2, Ltd., Plot No.76-77, Margao - Goa Pissurlem Industrial Estate, Sattari, Goa. Pan: Aaace 9474 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

adjudicate the matter considering the directions of the Tribunal given in its earlier order (supra) and then come out with a speaking order. In view thereof, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for re-adjudication