← 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

DCIT Cent, Cir-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1799/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sidhharth Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 32Section 4

order of the CIT(A) on these two disputed issues, who has considered the facts, provisions of law and passed a reasoned and speaking order and uphold the same and dismiss these two grounds of appeal of the Revenue. 12. The revenue has raised the additional ground appeal challenging

Emerson Network Power (India) P.Ltd, Thane vs. Addl CIT RG 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1771/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

with due respect, had no occasion to appreciate that section 127 operates independently of sections 120 and 124 and the order is not a speaking order with respect to absence of order u/s 127 of the Act. Thus, the Appellant humbly submits that the said decision cannot be treated

Emerson Network Power (India) P. Ltd, Thane vs. JCIT RG 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1975/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

with due respect, had no occasion to appreciate that section 127 operates independently of sections 120 and 124 and the order is not a speaking order with respect to absence of order u/s 127 of the Act. Thus, the Appellant humbly submits that the said decision cannot be treated

M/S. Citrix R & D India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2428/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

from the list of comparables. 29.1 The Ld. A.R. submitted that the TPO/AO has erred in law and facts by failing to pass a speaking order on exclusion of the above comparable in its TP order dated 30/Oct/2018. The assessee has furnished to the TPO, workings and justification

M/S. Super Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1950/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Jun 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 M/s. Super Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd., objections raised

Ketan Brothers Diamonds Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1627/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 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

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vega Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 750/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 13(3)(2) Vs. M/S Vega Chemicals Room No. 229/2019, Pvt Ltd 2Nd Floor, Aayakar C-404, Gokuldham, Bhavan, Mk Road, Dindoshi Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecv1029M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Aditya Ramchandra.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Aditya Ramchandra.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

information to take a different view. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and has passed a speaking order on merits and we uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue. 11. In the result, the appeal filed

Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Kalaburagi vs. Shri Tabrez Shakil Qureshi, Gulbarga

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1608/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sankarganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 80I

furnished all the relevant details before the AO as well as the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) after examining the evidence has passed a speaking order in giving relief to the Page 4 of 7 assessee. The relevant findings of the CIT(Appeals) with regard to the each

Sparc Samudaya Nirman Sahayak, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1883/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us. But This Falls During The Covid Period & In View Of 2 M/S. Sparc Samudaya Nirman Sahayak

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 263Section 8

above. Needless to mention, AO is directed to give the Assessee trust sufficient opportunity to present its case, present its case, and pass a speaking order carefully enumerating facts, circumstances, verifications and findings. 6. In the result, this assessment is set aside with the direction to AO to conduct fresh

Swaroopsing Bhadursingh Rathore, Thane vs. Asstt.Director of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1827/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 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 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

No.1826/Mum/2021 & ITA No.1827/Mum/2021 Shri Swaroopsingh Bhadursingh Rathore 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-judicial function

Swaroopsingh Bhadursingh Rathore, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1826/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 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 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

No.1826/Mum/2021 & ITA No.1827/Mum/2021 Shri Swaroopsingh Bhadursingh Rathore 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-judicial function

M/S. Gokaldas Images Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Bangalore

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

ITA 2359/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Assessing Officer violated law declared by Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO []_125 Taxman 963 that Assessing Officer should pass a speaking order taking into account objections for re-opening assessment under section 147, and resultantly, order was bad in law - High Court held that non-compliance ... committed by the AO that not dealing to each and every objections raised by the assessee. Hence, we direct the AO for passing a speaking order to dispose off the objections raised by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing

Shri. Harman H Baweja, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7628/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2011-12
Section 147Section 234ASection 57

file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after giving assessee one more opportunity of hearing, by way of a speaking order and in accordance with law. The assessee has liberty to address his arguments on merits before the learned CIT(A) and submit such supporting evidences

Chandani N. Hotchandani, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 1951/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramchandran
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69C

once again directed to de novo adjudicate the appeals of the assessee for all the years under consideration on merits by passing a speaking order and after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As the present appeals pertain to almost 15-20 years old assessment years, we further ... direct the learned CIT(A) to make ever possible endeavour to pass a speaking order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Further, the assessee is also directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing

Chandani N. Hotchandani, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 1950/MUM/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramchandran
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69C

once again directed to de novo adjudicate the appeals of the assessee for all the years under consideration on merits by passing a speaking order and after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As the present appeals pertain to almost 15-20 years old assessment years, we further ... direct the learned CIT(A) to make ever possible endeavour to pass a speaking order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Further, the assessee is also directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing

Chandani N. Hotchandani, Kalyan vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 1949/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramchandran
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69C

once again directed to de novo adjudicate the appeals of the assessee for all the years under consideration on merits by passing a speaking order and after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As the present appeals pertain to almost 15-20 years old assessment years, we further ... direct the learned CIT(A) to make ever possible endeavour to pass a speaking order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Further, the assessee is also directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing

Chandani N. Hotchandani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 1948/MUM/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramchandran
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69C

once again directed to de novo adjudicate the appeals of the assessee for all the years under consideration on merits by passing a speaking order and after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As the present appeals pertain to almost 15-20 years old assessment years, we further ... direct the learned CIT(A) to make ever possible endeavour to pass a speaking order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Further, the assessee is also directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing

Chandani N. Hotchandani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 1947/MUM/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramchandran
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69C

once again directed to de novo adjudicate the appeals of the assessee for all the years under consideration on merits by passing a speaking order and after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As the present appeals pertain to almost 15-20 years old assessment years, we further ... direct the learned CIT(A) to make ever possible endeavour to pass a speaking order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Further, the assessee is also directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing

Mapei Construction Products (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

these three situations is objected to by the taxpayer, the AO must consider the taxpayer's objections and pass a speaking order so as to comply with the principles of natural justice. If the AO decides in the said order that the transaction in question needs to be referred ... Whether before making a reference to the TPO, the AO is bound to deal with the objections raised by the assessee and pass a speaking order in accordance with the provisions of the Act and as per the conditions laid down under the CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016 dated by this

Rajabali Membhai Momin, Thane vs. ITO 2(4), Thane

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

ITA 1750/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajabali Memabhai Momin, Ito-2(4), A/601, Rohan Nishant Chs, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Shanti Park, Mira Road, Vs. Road No. 16Z, Thane-401 107. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane West-400604. Pan No. Atqpm 6904 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sameer Dalal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Sameer Dalal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 69

justice, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order after taking into consideration explanation of the assessee on the issue-in-dispute and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the Rajabali