“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

Arch Tech Building Materials Private Limited, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward 1, Cuddalore

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

ITA 4044/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 282(1)

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and they will also allow the petitioner to appear personally 6 for the purpose and pass a speaking order independent of the order passed earlier by them on January 16,2023. The same shall be done expeditiously provided the petitioner file his reply within

Combine Diamonds Private Limited, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2480/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrya N D Shri Prabhash Shankara.Y: 2009-10 Combine Diamonds Vs. Acit-5(1)(2), Mumbai Private Limited Fw 6010B, 6Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, East Wing, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaacc9949H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Rahul Sarda, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (Sr. Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.” 10.1 TheAssesseein support of aforesaid contention also relied on various judgments, which we will deal with in the latter part of this order ... submitting that the AO duly provided the reasons for reopening and thereafter disposed of the objections raised by the Assessee, vide orderdated 09.09.2016 by speaking order and thereafter issued various statutory notices, in order to examine the case of the Assessee and therefore it cannot be said that

Odisha Television Limited, Delhi vs. Circle 19(1), Delhi

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

ITA 6501/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct him to re-adjudicate the appeal de novo, in accordance with law, and by passing a speaking order. Due opportunity of being heard shall be given to the assessee who in turn shall cooperate with statutory notices of the First Appellate Authority

East Delhi Leasing P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7917/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

entitled to file the objections to the issuance of the notice and the AO was bound to dispose off the same through a speaking order. In the subject case those issues are not the issuance raised by the Assessee. Being completely distinguishable on facts this case also has no application

JCIT, (OSD), Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Mahendra Kumar Gupta HUF, Raipur

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

ITA 131/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.131/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147

keeping in view the principles of natural justice, I provide one final opportunity to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to come out with a speaking order through a remand report complying with the principles of natural justice. In view thereof, I set-aside the order of 6 The JCIT

Infinity International, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Juris. the ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 518/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalinfinity International, Nfac, Delhi Vs. H-611, Titanium City Centre, Present Jurisdiction 100 Ft. Anandnagar Road, Ito, Ward 3(3)(1), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad [Pan: Aaefi 2610 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Ukti Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 250Section 68

Apex Court in the case of GKN DRIVE SHAFT (INDIA) LTD. vs. ITO (259 ITR 19), we request Your Goodself to pass a speaking order dealing with all the objections raised hereinabove against the reasons recorded for Infinity International Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 13– reopening in our case ... reasons as disclosed in the additional affidavit dated February 10, 2004, the Assessing Officer shall consider and decide the preliminary objections by passing a speaking order. In case the order is adverse to the assessee, the assessee shall be at liberty to challenge such order on the preliminary objections

Mitesh Suresh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO International Taxation Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 5593/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarmitesh Suresh Shah Vs. Ito-International Tax 401, 4Th Floor, Blue Heaven, Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai Nehru Road, Vakola, Kautilya Bhavan, Pipeline, Santacruz (East), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400055 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Auxps9395K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed U/S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. The Order Is Bad In Law, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction

Section 144CSection 147Section 68

necessary preconditions for initiating the reassessment proceeding and completion thereof were not satisfied; and (iii) No separate speaking order disposing the objections of the Appellant to the initiation of the reassessment proceeding was passed. 4.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case

Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bharuch

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 836/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.835/Srt/2025 आयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.836/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai The Ito बनाम/ Kothari Ward-1(4) V/S. 2 119 Parkhetiafaliyu Kervada Bharuch – 356 069 Amod Bharuch Bharuch – 392 025 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cfupk 6177 B (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surendra Modiani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11/06/2025 (Quantum Appeal) & 12/06/2025 (Penalty Appeal) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14. Ita Nos.835 & 836/Srt/2025 Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

case and furnish the necessary documents and thereafter the AO will give finding on both the issues as noted above by way of a speaking order and assess the income of the assessee accordingly. This appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Rajendrakumar Ichubhai Kothari, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bharuch

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 835/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

Vaibhav Corporation, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 775/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 775/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vaibhav Corporation The Income Tax Officer बनाम 114/2/1, Vaibhav Corporation Ward-3(2)(1) / Dabholi, Katargam Surat 0 395 001 V/S. Surat – 395 004 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanfv 6268 J (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 21/05/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Vaibhav Corporation Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitali Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, assessing officer has erred in re-opening assessment

Bahadurgarh Shiksha Sabha, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana vs. Ld. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1877/CHANDI/2025[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026

Bench: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh. During The Course Of Proceedings, The Learned Cit(E) Issued Notices Calling For Various Details & Documentary Evidence In Order To Verify The Objects Of The Society & The Genuineness Of Its Activities. However, As Noted In The Impugned Order, The Assessee Did Not Furnish The Requisite Information In Response To The Notices Issued Through The E- Proceeding Portal. In View Of The Non-Compliance & Absence Of Supporting Material On Record, The Learned Cit(E) Rejected The Application For Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Paras Dawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 12Section 12ASection 80

learned CIT(E) shall consider the applications afresh after affording an adequate opportunity to be heard to the assessee and shall pass a speaking orders in accordance with law. 5 1876 & 1877/Chd/2025 9. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration

Bahadurgarh Shiksha Sabha, Bahadurgarh, Haryana vs. Ld. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1876/CHANDI/2025[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026

For Appellant: Sh. Paras Dawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 12Section 12ASection 80

Nobel Automotive India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2009/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: 19.01.2026

Section 143(3)Section 40

shall verify the evidence furnished by the assessee, examine the claims in accordance with the provisions of law and pass a speaking order after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all requisite details

Surendra Himmatlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, 8(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8536/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat

Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate vs. Mumbai International Airport Limited, Mumbai

ITA 7035/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

statutory mandate contained in section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal by passing a speaking order dealing with each ground raised by the assessee. The Ld. AR accordingly submitted that the matter may be restored to the file ... first appellate authority, is under a statutory obligation under section 250(6) of the Act to dispose of the appeal by passing a speaking order stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Once the assessee has raised specific grounds before the appellate authority

Mumbai International Airport Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

Metlife Global Operations Support Center Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 16(1), New Delhi

ITA 8750/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Metlife Global Operations Deputy Commissioner Of Income Support Centre Private Limited. Tax, Circle-16(1), Paharpur Business Centre, Vs C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, 21 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-1100019 Pan-Aafcm5000N Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By Shri Rajan Vohra, Adv. & Shri Lekh Mehta, Ca Respondent/Revenue By Shri Shrikant Namdeo, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026

Section 115Section 115OSection 143Section 143(3)

order of the learned assessing officer which was passed without admitting and adjudicating the additional claim raised by the Appellant and passing a non- speaking order with respect to the aforesaid additional claim made by the Appellant; 3. has erred in holding that the Appellant's additional claim

M/S Care India Solutions for Sustainable Development, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 7439/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

M/S Care India Solution for Sustainable Development, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 7438/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

fundamental principle of audi alteram partem. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not passing a speaking order, thus violating principles of natural justice in the impugned order under Section 250 of the Act dated September 9, 2025. 4. That on the facts ... fundamental principle of audi alteram partem. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in not passing a speaking order, thus violating principles of natural justice in the impugned order under Section 250 of the Act dated 09th September 2025. 4.1 That

M/S Care India Solution for Sustainable Development, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 7437/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250