“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6005/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Income Tax R. No. 126, Services Limited Mahindra Towers, 4Th Floor, 570 P.B. Marg, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharhi Karve Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400018. Pan/Gir No: Aaacm2931R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)Section 68

partly allowed the appeal. The CIT(A) has restored to the AO some issues for fresh examination and to pass a speaking order thereafter. In respect of disallowance of Rs.16.53 Crore claimed as expenditure incurred for the issuance ITA No.6005/MUM/2025/AY 2017-18 Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited

Murtuza Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 4080/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Otwani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 48Section 49Section 50CSection 54

treatment given to the claim of capital gains computed does not require any interference as the assessment order passed was a speaking order in tandem with the provisions of the Act. For these reasons, the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed. The appeal accordingly is dismissed.” 4. Being disagreed

Corporate Worldwise Stay LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle -20(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

ITA 5940/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 92B

fresh FAR analysis and after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AO is also directed to pass a speaking order dealing with all the contentions raised by the assessee, including the applicability of section 92, the definition of “international transaction” under section 92B, the justification

Ravindra Kumar, Khadda Bazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

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

ITA 97/VNS/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)

discretion of the Bench. On perusal of the records, it is found that the learned CIT(A) has passed order, which is a non speaking order, without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Further, on perusal of the assessment order, it is found that the explanation of the assessee

Samsher Singh, Renukoot vs. Income Tax Officer - III(4), Sonbhadra

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

ITA 111/VNS/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 250(6)

Multi Commodity Exchange) futures. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex-parte, in a summary manner, without passing a speaking order on merits of the case. This is in violation of statutory duty of learned CIT(A), as contained in Section ... pass speaking order for determination. Further, the assessment order was also passed ex-parte without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 3. At the time of hearing, learned Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue left the decisions to the discretion of the Bench. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Varanasi vs. Prominent Datamatics Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

upon by AO while calculating the additions made are erroneous. It is well settled legal proposition that AO must pass a reasoned and self- speaking order for expeditious justice in a meaningful manner. This is required because the orders are subject to appeal before higher authorities and courts. Orders passed

M/S Aabdeen Travel Services, Kanpur vs. ITO-1(3)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 400/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 68

appellant assessee. Further, he also contended that the impugned order of learned CIT(A) did not meet the requirement of passing a speaking order on merits. He submitted that the learned CIT(A) should be directed to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity

Marut Paper Products Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 1, Kanpur

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

ITA 393/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

time of hearing, learned Authorized counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned appellate order passed by learned CIT(A) is not speaking order on merits. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine for want of prosecution without going into ... perusing the materials on record and after hearing of both sides, we find that impugned order passed by learned CIT(A) is not a speaking order on the merits of the case. Instead, he has passed a summary order dismissing the assessee’s appeal in limine without going

M/S. Narain Properties Limited, Kanpur vs. ACIT-VI, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 354/LKW/2010[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Jan 2026AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 45

business or speculative. The Hon'ble Bench vide its order dated 16.04.2004 set a side the order of the CIT(A) for passing a speaking order with a direction to look into the actual delivery of shares. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 15.03.2010 again

Vineetsingh Gulabsingh Rore, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 253(5)Section 263Section 69

purchase of this property. g) After examining the above issues in depth, the A.O. shall make an assessment de-novo by passing a speaking order and giving his specific findings with regard to the sources of cash deposited in the bank during demonetization period and in case of non-satisfactory

Virendra Vijaysingh Pardeshi, Nashik vs. Income Tax Office Ward 2(1) Nashik, Nashik

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

ITA 2620/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2620/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Virendra Vijaysingh Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Pardeshi, Row House No.10, Swapnpurti Cooperative Housing Society, Kalptaru Nagar, Nashik- 422006. Pan : Anhpp9809L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Pardeshi Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit-Appeals Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2500000 Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Merely For Non-Appearance Relying Solely On Procedural Default & Ignoring That Appellate Proceedings Are Continuation Of Assessment & Must Be Decided On Merits Based On Record & Written Submissions Already Filed.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh PardeshiFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 68Section 69A

parte without adjudicating on merits despite detailed grounds and statement of facts on record, violating section 250(6) of the Act which mandates a speaking order on each ground of appeal Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete

George Molakal Mathew, Pune vs. ITO International Tax Ward-3, Pune

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

ITA 2236/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: or during the hearing of the Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 3

/NFAC was required to decide each and every ground either factual or legal separately by a speaking order. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and without going into merits of the case, remand the matter back to the file ... Pune with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law adjudicating each and every ground separately by a speaking order after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued

Mr Bharat Datta Nakhava, Raigad vs. ITO WD-3, Panvel

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

ITA 1982/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha (Virtual)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

aside proceedings ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide in accordance with law and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed

Envirnment Sewa Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is bearing ITA

ITA 6773/MUM/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 4Section 80G

with a direction to condone the delay in filing the application for renewal and to pass a reasoned and 6 Environment Sewa Foundation, Mumbai speaking order in accordance with law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Friends Salt Works and Allied Industries, Gandhidham vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Gandhidham

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

ITA 169/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puglia, Ld. (CIT) DR

Section 143(3)

Learned CIT(A) has also erred in law and on facts in not appreciating detailed submission made by the appellant and passing a non- speaking order. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought not have confirm the addition of Rs.6

Friends Salt Works & Allied Inds., Gandhidham vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Gandhidham, Gandhidham

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

ITA 99/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puglia, Ld. (CIT) DR

Section 143(3)

M/S. Bms Sales Pvt. Ltd., Purulia vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

interference. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity/anomaly in the appellate order of the Id. CIT (A), who has passed a very reasoned and speaking order after following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT VS. Dataware Private Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision

Jay Granites Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2641/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.K. Subash Anbarasu, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 250

file the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A); and then, the Ld.CIT(A) has to decide the grounds of appeal on merits by passing a speaking order as envisaged in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. Having said so, we have also gone through the reasons given

Jay Granites Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2640/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.K. Subash Anbarasu, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 250

Jay Granites Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2639/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.K. Subash Anbarasu, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 250