← 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

Aero Club, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-49(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2957/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Pradip Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

computation on the adjustment on account of Domestic Transaction and consider the submissions regarding the Transfer Pricing Issue and directed the TPO to pass speaking order on the issue involved. The give effect order from TPO was received on 15.09.2022. It is also necessary to mention here that

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4973/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee can represent to the assessing officer regarding the correctness of the same and which the assessing officer must dispose off by passing a speaking order. 128. It is therefore clear that apart from seeking the copy of the satisfaction for re- opening the assessment as recorded by assessing officer

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4972/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee can represent to the assessing officer regarding the correctness of the same and which the assessing officer must dispose off by passing a speaking order. 128. It is therefore clear that apart from seeking the copy of the satisfaction for re- opening the assessment as recorded by assessing officer

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4971/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee can represent to the assessing officer regarding the correctness of the same and which the assessing officer must dispose off by passing a speaking order. 128. It is therefore clear that apart from seeking the copy of the satisfaction for re- opening the assessment as recorded by assessing officer

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4970/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee can represent to the assessing officer regarding the correctness of the same and which the assessing officer must dispose off by passing a speaking order. 128. It is therefore clear that apart from seeking the copy of the satisfaction for re- opening the assessment as recorded by assessing officer

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4969/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee can represent to the assessing officer regarding the correctness of the same and which the assessing officer must dispose off by passing a speaking order. 128. It is therefore clear that apart from seeking the copy of the satisfaction for re- opening the assessment as recorded by assessing officer

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4968/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee can represent to the assessing officer regarding the correctness of the same and which the assessing officer must dispose off by passing a speaking order. 128. It is therefore clear that apart from seeking the copy of the satisfaction for re- opening the assessment as recorded by assessing officer

Shri Dipesh Sureshbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Vapi

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

ITA 251/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat08 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.251/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Hearing) Dipesh Sureshbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, 834/2, Next To Dr. Gulab Clinic, Surat Silvassa "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ayypp9552E (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2023

Section 147Section 250(6)

justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a ITA.251/SRT/2023/AY.2015-16 Shri Dipesh Sureshbhai Patel 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

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 123/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

natural Justice. The orders are highly unjustified and are not sustainable in law. ln view of the above, being a cryptic and non-speaking order. That, it is settled law that, the AO cannot compel the assessee to earn income so that the addition made by AO in respect ... reasons. the noticee is entitled to file objections to the notice. Thereafter, the assessing officer must dispose of the objections by passing a speaking order. Hence, inherent safeguards were read into Section 148 of the lT Act, mandating the assessing officer to furnish reasons, allowing the assessee to file objections

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 122/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

natural Justice. The orders are highly unjustified and are not sustainable in law. ln view of the above, being a cryptic and non-speaking order. That, it is settled law that, the AO cannot compel the assessee to earn income so that the addition made by AO in respect ... reasons. the noticee is entitled to file objections to the notice. Thereafter, the assessing officer must dispose of the objections by passing a speaking order. Hence, inherent safeguards were read into Section 148 of the lT Act, mandating the assessing officer to furnish reasons, allowing the assessee to file objections

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 121/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

natural Justice. The orders are highly unjustified and are not sustainable in law. ln view of the above, being a cryptic and non-speaking order. That, it is settled law that, the AO cannot compel the assessee to earn income so that the addition made by AO in respect ... reasons. the noticee is entitled to file objections to the notice. Thereafter, the assessing officer must dispose of the objections by passing a speaking order. Hence, inherent safeguards were read into Section 148 of the lT Act, mandating the assessing officer to furnish reasons, allowing the assessee to file objections

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 120/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

natural Justice. The orders are highly unjustified and are not sustainable in law. ln view of the above, being a cryptic and non-speaking order. That, it is settled law that, the AO cannot compel the assessee to earn income so that the addition made by AO in respect ... reasons. the noticee is entitled to file objections to the notice. Thereafter, the assessing officer must dispose of the objections by passing a speaking order. Hence, inherent safeguards were read into Section 148 of the lT Act, mandating the assessing officer to furnish reasons, allowing the assessee to file objections

Hindu Co-Operative Bank Limited, Pathankot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Ciecle 1), Amritsar

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

ITA 104/ASR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

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

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

aside the issue to the ld. AO for verification of the documents of the assessee on the above-mentioned issue and allow a speaking order against the assessee’s claim. Needless to say, that the AO shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee

Shri Onkar Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Hoshiarpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

ITA 48/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

consideration. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the issue is restored back to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee in its own interests is advised to place

Shri Onkar Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Hoshiarpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

ITA 47/ASR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

consideration. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the issue is restored back to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee in its own interests is advised to place

Piyush Sanawar, Deoband vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)4, Deoband

In the result, the appeal is noted as dismissed

ITA 1806/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal simply by relying on the order of the AO and has not passed a speaking order in arriving at his conclusion. In my considered view such an order cannot stand in the eye of law. Therefore, in order to subserve

Bhupinder Singh Julka, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1807/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 80T

issued directions told AO to verify as to when the title of the property was transferred in the name of Assessee by passing a speaking order. The Ld AO thus in the final order dated 26.02.2022 has held as under. 9. In view of the above directions ... directed to verify as to when the title of the property was transferred in the name of the assessee by passing a speaking order. Accordingly, the AO may decide whether the capital gains arise out of sale of the property is short term or long term. The objection is accordingly

Nihon Parkerizing (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT (OSD), Circle-18(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1461/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Jagjet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 72Section 72A(2)Section 72A(2)(b)

without appreciating the various facts and explanations provided by the assessee. (i) That the Ld. AO did not pass any speaking order in respect of brought forward loss of amalgamating company of Rs.4,77,22,597/- without bringing any adverse noting on merger compliance. (ii) That

M/S. Action Batteries Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 124/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 36(1)

mind in arbitrary and mechanical manner. He pleaded that the appeal may be restored back to the ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits of the case after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and considering the written submission of the assessee. 3. Per contra

Vikesh Chaturbhuj Agrawal, Nagpur vs. I.T.O. Ward -4(1), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 386/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh SindhwaniFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

false. 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is well reasoned and a speaking order confirming the levy of penalty, therefore, requires no interference. 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue