← 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

Mallikarjun Virupaxappa Yarasi, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

completely omitted to examine the issues in question from consideration and made the assessment in an arbitrary manner. His order is a completely non-speaking order. In our view, it was a fit case for the learned P.Commissioner to exercise his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 which he rightly exercised

Amol Omprakash Porwal, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 388/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amol Omprakash Porwal, Ito Ward 26(1)(1), 1901, Richmond Tower, Cliff Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Avenue, Near Hiranandani Vs. Complex, Gardens Powai, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Arupp 0066 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Mundra Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Anand MundraFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

case and in Law, Ld. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT(A) did not pass speaking order on CIT(A) did not pass speaking order on merits, hence his order is merits, hence his order ... deciding afresh in accordance with the the matter back to him for deciding afresh in accordance with the law and pass a speaking order on merit of the additions challenged pass a speaking order on merit of the additions challenged pass a speaking order on merit of the additions challenged

The Income-Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward 2(1), Mumbai vs. Sai Shiva Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly

ITA 124/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Income-Tax Officer Sai Shiva Educational Trust, (Exemption) Ward 2(1), Ground Floor, Amar Mahal, Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Vs. Near Chandan Cinema, A.D. Building, Cumballa Hill, Peddar Road, Juhu, Road, Mumbai-400049. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaats 2744 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. D.C. JainFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

trustee. The learned CIT(A), while the benefit of the trustee. The learned CIT(A), while adjudicating this issue, has not passed a speaking order and adjudicating this issue, has not passed a speaking order and adjudicating this issue, has not passed a speaking order and has not given

Duck Creek Technologies India LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 26 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1898/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

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

Sidhesh Films P. Ld., Mumbai vs. ITO-16(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 131/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A) Is Indeed Different From The Address Which Is Stated In Learned Cit(A)’S Order & It

Section 143(3)

adjudication de novo after giving yet another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order. We direct so. As the matter has been remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, all other grievances on merits

ACIT Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Asianet News Networks Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6277/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

learned CIT(A), and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by way of a speaking order, in accordance with the law and after giving yet another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ordered, accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Pronounced

Muppidathy Sivan Thevar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1639/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

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

Muppidathy Sivan Thevar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1638/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

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

Goldstone Trading Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 9(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1779/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2005-06
Section 143(3)

file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication de novo after affording yet another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, by way of a speaking order, and in accordance with the law. Ordered, accordingly. 6. As the matter is remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh

Hikal Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5388/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

Bangalore EOU 27.53% 3.3. We find that the ld AO without finding fault with the workings of the assessee and without passing a speaking order, directly proceeded to allocate the head office expenses on the basis of turnover as under:- Mahad Rs 3,05,39,860.37 Taloja

Hikal Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5387/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

Bangalore EOU 27.53% 3.3. We find that the ld AO without finding fault with the workings of the assessee and without passing a speaking order, directly proceeded to allocate the head office expenses on the basis of turnover as under:- Mahad Rs 3,05,39,860.37 Taloja

DCIT (OSD) Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5372/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

Bangalore EOU 27.53% 3.3. We find that the ld AO without finding fault with the workings of the assessee and without passing a speaking order, directly proceeded to allocate the head office expenses on the basis of turnover as under:- Mahad Rs 3,05,39,860.37 Taloja

Prakash Industrial Corporation, Mumbai vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh-ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 524/MUM/2022[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja ChhawachhariaFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

alleged hawala parties and adding the same to the total income returned. The assessment order of the AO is a well-reasoned and a speaking order giving in detail the reasons for his fair estimation and therefore, I do not see any reason to take a view in the matter

Mukesh Shivgan Patel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1811/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits in accordance with the law, by way of a speaking order and after giving yet another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal will be treated as maintainable, in the light of Covid relaxations

Asha Devi, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 371/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deva Rathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

brought out any details of verification of cash deposits carried out by him during the course of assessment and he has passed a non-speaking order accepting the explanation given by the assessee. The source of cash deposits from “safe custody account” was not questioned by the AO by calling

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

writ petition (civil) No. 7028/2010 and M/s Itron Metering Solutions India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT Circle-Bt l), New Delhi which states that speaking order has to be passed by the Honorable DRP 2.3. The learned TPO have erred in stating that the Assessee has used Resale Price Method

Tunisha Digant Kapadia, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Comm of Income Tax CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1849/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(2)(a)Section 250(6)

ought to have dealt with the issues so raised by the assessee-appellant on merits and by way of speaking order and in accordance with the law. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits ... matter is therefore remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication merits, in accordance with the law, by way of a speaking order and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As the matter is being remitted to the file of the learned

Hemson Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1898/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

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

Hemson Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1897/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

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

M/S. Logicon Alternate Fuels Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1842/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

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