← 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

Mallarpur Naisuva, Birbhum vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 764/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the reply which may be filed and thereafter, he shall pass a speaking order and grant approval under section 80G of the Act in accordance with law as the claim of the assessee, prima facie appears

Mondal Education Trust, Hooghly vs. DCIT, Circle 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 367/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 246ASection 250

appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order as even though the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in para-4.6 that the approval under section 10(23C) has been granted to the trust

Bani Broto Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 58(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1095/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

restore the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merits by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make

Arulmigu Soundaraja Perumal Thirukovil, Thirukovil vs. ITO Ward 1, Dindigul

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

ITA 2122/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2122/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Arulmigu Soundaraja Perumal Income Tax Officer, Thirukovil, Ward-1, No.01, Thoppur Dindigul, Dindigul. Tadicombu S.O, Tamil Nadu-624 709. [Pan: Aaeta8118R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS

making the impugned addition. We have however noted that the order passed by Page - 2 - of 4 the Ld. AO is not a speaking order and clear facts have not been brought on records before making the impugned addition. There are also indications of no enquiries conducted by the Ld.AO ... direct the Ld. AO to readjudicate the matter de novo by examining the matter afresh in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

Nagaraj Sujatha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1649/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250(6)Section 69A

merit. In our view, this approach is contrary to section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates the appellate authority to pass a speaking order stating points for determination, decisions thereon and reasons for such decisions. Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to examine the additions on the basis

ACIT 41 2 1, Mumbai vs. Dinesh Jyotichand Jain, Mumbai

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

ITA 5460/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 03/11/2025
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

considered necessary and such further enquiries as may be considered necessary and such further enquiries as may be considered necessary and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. It is after pass a speaking order in accordance with law. It is after pass a speaking order in accordance

Anjanna Chattopadhyay, Wadala vs. Income Tax Officer 15 1 4 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5009/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR.DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 45

directed to consider the delay of 635 days in lenient approach and to adjudicate the matter afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. heard in the remanded proceedings. Simultaneously, the assessee is expected to act diligently and extend full cooperation

Sanjeev Kumar Rana, Dlehi vs. ITO Ward, Uttarpradesh

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5592/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Uma Upadhaya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A), who vide his impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing a non-speaking order and without going into the merits of the case, which is not permissible under the law. 4. I have heard both the parties ... perused the records. Upon careful consideration, I note that Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action of the AO by passing a non-speaking order and AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. However, it was the contention of the assessee that

Sanjeev Kumar Rana, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2 -(2) (4), Ghazibad

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5591/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Uma Upadhaya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A), who vide his impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing a non-speaking order and without going into the merits of the case, which is not permissible under the law. 4. I have heard both the parties ... perused the records. Upon careful consideration, I note that Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action of the AO by passing a non-speaking order and AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. However, it was the contention of the assessee that

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3633/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

Assessing Officer to: - Supply the reasons and material forming the basis of reopening. - Provide the assessee with an opportunity to reply. - Subsequently, pass a speaking order under Section 148A(d) before proceeding further. In the present matter, no such procedure was followed. The Department jumped directly to issuing notice under

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3632/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

Assessing Officer to: - Supply the reasons and material forming the basis of reopening. - Provide the assessee with an opportunity to reply. - Subsequently, pass a speaking order under Section 148A(d) before proceeding further. In the present matter, no such procedure was followed. The Department jumped directly to issuing notice under

Greenline Ecofab Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1373/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1373/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Greenline Ecofab Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 406, Jeevan Deep, Opp. Sub- Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Vs. Jail, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 Surat, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg 2881 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 68

reasons recorded by the AO was provided to the assessee and its objection was duly disposed of by the AO by passing a speaking order. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon

Ajinkyatara Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Koper Khairane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(1)(1), Vashi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3292/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sushant AlmeFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR.DR.)
Section 12Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

directed to reconsider the delay in lenient approach and to adjudicate the matter afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the remanded proceedings. Simultaneously

Shri Laxmikant Kakubhai Ruparel, Adipur Kutchh vs. The ITO Ward 1, Gandhidham

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

ITA 581/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pratik A. Kanabar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 147

carried out u/s 147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the above facts ... matter Page 2 of 3 Laxmikant K. Ruparel back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem

Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Legal Heir of Late Smt. Ujiben Kanjibhai Sakariya, Jetpur vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 185/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot- 1, Rajkot, has erred in wrongly mentioned the facts in body of order and set aside the Speaking order passed by Assessing Officer,as treated as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of the revenue within the meaning of section

A K Patel, Surat vs. ITO, ACIT Circle 3(3), Surat

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

ITA 321/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem

Arhamgachchh Sthanakvasi Jain Sampraday Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 409/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.409/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Na Arhamgachchh Sthanakvasi The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Jain Sampraday Trust Vejalpur 380 015 V/S. 1, Paras Chambers, Opp. Sagar Hotel Nr. Ujala Circle, Sarkhej Ahmedabad – 382 210 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaeta 9012 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kamal Bhambhani, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: 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 24/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Bhambhani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 250

being heard and considering the evidences and submissions that the assessee may file in support of its claim. The CIT (Exemptions) shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Savli Taluka Secondary and Higher Secondary Employees Co Op. Credit Society Limited, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1772/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1772/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Savli Taluka Secondary & The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Higher Secondary Employees Ward-1(2)(2) V/S. Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. Vadodara – 390 007 18, Rayakaka Park Savli Desar Road Vadodara – 391 770. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafas 6647 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Bakshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 272(1)(d)Section 68

Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2019-20 within the time granted to it. The Assessing Officer shall pass a speaking order after affording due opportunity to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Alco Suppliers Private Limited, Guwahati vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Alco Suppliers Private Limited M/S Alco Suppliers (P) Ltd. National Faceless Assessment C/O Subhas Agarwal & Center, Associates (Advocate) Siddha Assessment Unit, Income Tax Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suit Department, New Delhi No.213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca5182E Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

interference. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity/anomaly in the appellate order of the ld. 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

Bimal Barai, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Siliguri

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

ITA 1433/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Ankit Prakash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Pampa Ray, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 250

Assessing Officer is directed to examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 3 Bimal Barai 6. In the result, the appeal