← 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

Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 519/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 201Section 40aSection 92C

specified whether the proceedings initiated or action taken on this continue. 6. Carry forward Losses- The learned DCIT erred in not passing a speaking order quantifying carry forward of unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation for the current as well as the earlier years. Each one of the above grounds

Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1910/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 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

Veena G. Netto, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-57, Mumbai

ITA 1594/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhveena G. Netto Vs. Commissioner Of Income B-207, Hill Crest,-1, Tax (Appeals)-57 Raheja Vihar, Opp Mumbai – 400 021 Chandevali Farm Road, Powai, Mumbai – 400072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ahkpn7043F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dipesh RupareliaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 144Section 234BSection 234CSection 271

penalty a. erred in levying consequential interest u/s. 234B and u/s 234C without giving any opportunity of hearing and in not passing any speaking order for the levy of interest; b. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(b) and Section

Shri Manish Manila Gosar HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - 26(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1661/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am Shri Manish Manila Gosar Huf Ito-26(2)(2) N. M. Associates, 1, Tarlika, Mumbai-400 051 Ground Floor, 216, Vs. Sir Bhalchandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400 019 Pan/Gir No. Aafhm 2740 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nitin Furia Respondent By : Ms. Usha Shrote Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitin FuriaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Shrote
Section 234Section 234BSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

erred in levying interest u/s 234B of Rs.1,32,012/- without giving an opportunity of hearing and without passing a speaking order. b. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of interest u/s.234-B of the Income Tax Act, on the assessed income instead

Rekha Prakash Niichani, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1734/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

accepting that notice was not served at the proper address. In this view of the matter I direct learned CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on this issue taking into account the observation hereinabove. 7. In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order

M/S. Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

order passed by the learned A.O. without first disposing off the objections filed by the appellant for reopening of the assessment by passing a speaking order and consequently, the assessment order passed being a nullity ought to have been cancelled. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned

Giriganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7127/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Him. The Cit(Appeals) Has Failed To Appreciate That Addition On A New Issue Of Long Term Capital Gain

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 250(6)

file of learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) is directed to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order in this regard. Our above order applies mutatis mutandis in A.Y. 2014-15. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

M/S. Murudeshwar Ceramics Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed, except ITA No

ITA 442/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A KulkalrniFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

even making any reference to the submission filed by the Appellant and without any redressal of the issues raised therein by way of a speaking order. 20. It is further submitted that the appellant had made several requests to the AO, Pr. CIT and the CIT(A) to provide copy

M/S. Murudeshwar Ceramics Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed, except ITA No

ITA 441/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A KulkalrniFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

even making any reference to the submission filed by the Appellant and without any redressal of the issues raised therein by way of a speaking order. 20. It is further submitted that the appellant had made several requests to the AO, Pr. CIT and the CIT(A) to provide copy

M/S. Murudeshwar Ceramics Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed, except ITA No

ITA 440/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A KulkalrniFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

even making any reference to the submission filed by the Appellant and without any redressal of the issues raised therein by way of a speaking order. 20. It is further submitted that the appellant had made several requests to the AO, Pr. CIT and the CIT(A) to provide copy

M/S. Murudeshwar Ceramics Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed, except ITA No

ITA 439/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A KulkalrniFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

even making any reference to the submission filed by the Appellant and without any redressal of the issues raised therein by way of a speaking order. 20. It is further submitted that the appellant had made several requests to the AO, Pr. CIT and the CIT(A) to provide copy

M/S. Murudeshwar Ceramics Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed, except ITA No

ITA 438/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A KulkalrniFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

even making any reference to the submission filed by the Appellant and without any redressal of the issues raised therein by way of a speaking order. 20. It is further submitted that the appellant had made several requests to the AO, Pr. CIT and the CIT(A) to provide copy

M/S. Murudeshwar Ceramics Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed, except ITA No

ITA 437/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A KulkalrniFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

even making any reference to the submission filed by the Appellant and without any redressal of the issues raised therein by way of a speaking order. 20. It is further submitted that the appellant had made several requests to the AO, Pr. CIT and the CIT(A) to provide copy

M/S. Murudeshwar Ceramics Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed, except ITA No

ITA 436/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A KulkalrniFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

even making any reference to the submission filed by the Appellant and without any redressal of the issues raised therein by way of a speaking order. 20. It is further submitted that the appellant had made several requests to the AO, Pr. CIT and the CIT(A) to provide copy

M/S. Murudeshwar Ceramics Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed, except ITA No

ITA 435/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A KulkalrniFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

even making any reference to the submission filed by the Appellant and without any redressal of the issues raised therein by way of a speaking order. 20. It is further submitted that the appellant had made several requests to the AO, Pr. CIT and the CIT(A) to provide copy

M/S. Murudeshwar Ceramics Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed, except ITA No

ITA 434/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A KulkalrniFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

even making any reference to the submission filed by the Appellant and without any redressal of the issues raised therein by way of a speaking order. 20. It is further submitted that the appellant had made several requests to the AO, Pr. CIT and the CIT(A) to provide copy

Bipin Amratlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 5959/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 251

file of ld.CIT(A) to give the assessee, an opportunity of being heard and thereafter, decide the appeal as per law by a speaking order. Ld. Counsel of the assessee agreed with the above proposition and undertook to cooperate with ld. CIT(A) when the matter is remanded

The Siddha Co-Op Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 31 (3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4667/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

cannot be sustainable. Hence in the interest of justice the issue is remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) to pass a speaking order as per law. Needless to add the assessee should be allowed opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands

Kumaon Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd, Thane vs. ITO Ward 10(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1502/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 250Section 68

notice u/s, 148 of the income Tax Act, 1961. The objection on reassessment proceeding was filed, which was considered and rebutted vide a detailed speaking order. The rebuttal has also been reproducedunder para 6.2 and 6.3 of the Assessment Order in a nut shell, the assessment proceeding was reopened

Gm Overseas, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1891/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

reasons which were provided to the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee filed objections to the re-opening which was disposed of by passing a speaking order. The AO, thereafter, issued statutory notices u/s 143(2). In response to the statutory notices issued by the AO, the AR of the assessee appeared