← 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

Kiran S Patel, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 233/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Chetan K. DhabaliaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 205

verification, the AO shall grant credit for the same. Needless to say, the AO shall allow sufficient opportunity to the assessee and pass a speaking order in this regard. It is further clarified that if the Department is of the opinion that the employer-deductor has not deposited the said

DCIT, CC- 5(2), Mumbai vs. Sudar Industrial Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the two appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2727/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Hemant KumarFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 153C

principles of natural justice shall restore this issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate fresh on merits and pass a speaking order and we allow the grounds of appeal of the Revenue for statistical purposes. 8. As the facts and circumstances in this appeal is identical

M/S. Oriental Trading Co., Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2329/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2329 & 2330/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Cit(A) - Nfac M/S Oriental Trading Co. Mumbai. 1St Floor, Elite House, Punjab बिधम/ Foundry, Near Classic Studio, Vs. Mira Road East, Mumbai-400 107 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaafo7024L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Parikh, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 26.10.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

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

DCIT, Circle -1, Thane vs. M/S Accura Pharmaquip Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 969/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 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

Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 922/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 919/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 920/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 922/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11) बिधम/ Advantage Overseas Pvt. Dcit-1(1) Ltd. Bhopal. Vs. 414, A- Wing Express Zone, Off Western Express Highway Malad (E), Mumbai-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaeca8925F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 18.02.2022 For Ays. 2014-15 & 2013-14; & Order Dated 11.02.202 For Ay 2010-11. For Ay. 2014-15 (Ita. No. 919/Mum/2022) 2. The Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passing The Impugned Order Without Providing The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. Having Gone Through The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

with a direction to determine the issues raised in the appeal of the assessee and to adjudicate the same by passing a speaking order. And the assessee is also directed to be diligent during the hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) or to file the written submission as well

Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 920/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 919/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 920/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 922/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11) बिधम/ Advantage Overseas Pvt. Dcit-1(1) Ltd. Bhopal. Vs. 414, A- Wing Express Zone, Off Western Express Highway Malad (E), Mumbai-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaeca8925F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 18.02.2022 For Ays. 2014-15 & 2013-14; & Order Dated 11.02.202 For Ay 2010-11. For Ay. 2014-15 (Ita. No. 919/Mum/2022) 2. The Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passing The Impugned Order Without Providing The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. Having Gone Through The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

with a direction to determine the issues raised in the appeal of the assessee and to adjudicate the same by passing a speaking order. And the assessee is also directed to be diligent during the hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) or to file the written submission as well

Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 919/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 919/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 920/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 922/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11) बिधम/ Advantage Overseas Pvt. Dcit-1(1) Ltd. Bhopal. Vs. 414, A- Wing Express Zone, Off Western Express Highway Malad (E), Mumbai-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaeca8925F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 18.02.2022 For Ays. 2014-15 & 2013-14; & Order Dated 11.02.202 For Ay 2010-11. For Ay. 2014-15 (Ita. No. 919/Mum/2022) 2. The Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passing The Impugned Order Without Providing The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. Having Gone Through The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

with a direction to determine the issues raised in the appeal of the assessee and to adjudicate the same by passing a speaking order. And the assessee is also directed to be diligent during the hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) or to file the written submission as well

Jagdamba Service Solution Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) (NFAC)- Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 913/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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

T K Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 892/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

T K Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 891/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

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

Natural Gowers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 848/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

terms of rule 12 of the Faceless Appeals Rules 2021, for adjudication de novo in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order. Ordered, accordingly. As the matter stands restored to the file of the first appellate authority for adjudication all other issues raised in the cross ... novo after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, through video conferencing, to the assessee, in accordance with the law, and by way of a speaking order. Ordered, accordingly. As the matter is set aside to the file of the first appellate authority, all the issue raised on merits are rendered

Surana Motors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 846/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

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

Master Polishers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 845/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

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

Fortive India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 443/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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

DCIT- Cir. 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 203/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 250

terms of rule 12 of the Faceless Appeals Rules 2021, for adjudication de novo in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order. Ordered, accordingly. As the matter stands restored to the file of the first appellate authority for ITA No.: 112 and 203/Mum/2022 Assessment year

Nilesh V. Metha, Mumbai vs. DCIT 32(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1150/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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 Vaishali Pharma Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 1122/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

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

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 112/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 250

terms of rule 12 of the Faceless Appeals Rules 2021, for adjudication de novo in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order. Ordered, accordingly. As the matter stands restored to the file of the first appellate authority for ITA No.: 112 and 203/Mum/2022 Assessment year

M/S. Mazgaon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1078/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 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

Stg Refractory Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-400042 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Karnataka-560500

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

ITA 1063/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

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