← 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

Ravibhai Mansukhbhai Bhalara, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO WD 2(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 304/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.304/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Ravibhai Mansukhbhai Bhalara Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amin Marg, Vidhya Kunj Society, Ito Ward 2 (1)(1), T-Office, New Rajkot(Gujarat) - 360001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot(Gujarat) - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Avqpb6946D (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

r.w.s. 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex-parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Page 2 of 3 Ravibhai M. Bhalara ... interest of justice, I restore the matter 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, I deem

Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat.

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

ITA 918/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat, Ito, Ward 1(2)(1), 11-1572, Radhakrishna Textile Aayakar Bhavan, Majuragate, Market, Ring Road, Vs. Surat-395007. Surat-395002. Pan No. Awgps 7288 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh C. Shah, CA
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

shall not seek unwarranted CIT(A), in turn, shall pass a reasoned and adjournments. The CIT(A) in turn, shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, dealing with all contentions raised, including any speaking order, dealing with all contentions raised, including any speaking order, dealing with all contentions raised, including

Yogendrakumar Ramavtar Agarwal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 882/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Yogendrakumar Ramavtar Ito, Ward-1(2)(5), Agarwal, Surat Current Jurisdiction: 2053-Mahaveer Textile Market, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(1), Ring Road, Textile Area, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Surat-395002. Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aarpa 7623 C Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Rasesh Shah, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69C

Assessing Officer shall thereafter re (c) The Assessing Officer shall thereafter re-adjudicate the issue adjudicate the issue afresh, by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law afresh, by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law afresh, by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with

Sofia Twist and Text Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 739/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sofia Twist & Text Pvt Ltd, Dcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) 3003, Rathi Palace, Kamela Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Darwaja, Ring Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Majurgate, Surat - 395002 Surat - 395002 Pan No. Aadcs4384F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Suresh K Kabra, CA
Section 148Section 151Section 68

pass a speaking opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order upon such verification. order upon such verification. 4.5 In view of the restoration of the legal ground to the file of the In view

Pannalal Rampher Yadav, Silvasa vs. ITO, Silvassa

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

ITA 647/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 250(6)Section 69A

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the first appellate authority is required to dispose of the appeal by passing a reasoned and speaking order on the merits of the case, even in the event of non-appearance by the appellant. The dismissal of an appeal for want

Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2, Bardoli

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

ITA 601/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Ito Ward-2, At & Post Areth, Tal Mandvi, Aayakar Bhavan, Janta Nagar Surat-394160. Vs. Society, Bardoli-394601. Pan No. Ajjpg 4246 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Shaunak K. Zaveri, CA
Section 143(3)

accordance with law, by passing a and in accordance with law, by passing a and in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned, speaking order. ITA No. 601/SRT/2025 9 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi 5.6 In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order of In view

Kamlesh Naginbhai Lad, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(6), Surat

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

ITA 589/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Kamlesh Naginbhai Lad, Ito Ward-3(2)(6) 59 Yogeshvar Park, Near Rekha Room No. 109, 1St Floor, Income Park, Adajan, Hajira Road, Vs. Tax Office, Anavil Business Surat-395009. Centre, Adajan, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aaqpl 7195 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Esmayeel, Saherwala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 tax Act, 1961 to dispose of the appeal to dispose of the appeal by a speaking order, after granting the assessee an effective after granting the assessee an effective after granting the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard and after

Sumitlal, Surat vs. ITO, Surat

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

ITA 545/SRT/2025[201011]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Sumitlal, Ito 101-B/2, Sanskrut Flats Umra, Aayakar Bhavan, Bharthana, Vs. Surat-395007. Surat-395007 Pan No. Acxpl 1238 Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Nitin Paharia, CA&
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

after affording due opportunity of hearing to the learned CIT(A), after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee, shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law. If assessee, shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law. If assessee, shall pass a speaking order in accordance with

Tirupati Shyam Enterprise, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Tirupati Shyam Enterprise Nfac, Delhi Current F.P. No. 139 Orleaans, Near Jurisdiction: Dy. Cit Circle- Sosyo Circle Udhna Magadalla Vs. 1(1)(1), Road, Surat-395007. Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aagft 3570 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rasesh Shah, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 68

learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the t, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order. appeal without passing speaking order. 3. On the facts and circumstances as well as law on the 3. On the facts and circumstances as well

Mr. Anil, Ernakulam vs. ITO Non Corp Ward-1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

ITA 615/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Vishnu Das KFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271A

shall adjudicate the penalty matter afresh, after deciding the quantum issues on merits, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 & 615/Coch/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Mr. Anil, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-1(10, Kochi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

ITA 614/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Vishnu Das KFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271A

shall adjudicate the penalty matter afresh, after deciding the quantum issues on merits, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 & 615/Coch/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court

Rupesh Kumar Mittal, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 971/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam Singh choudhary, JCIT
Section 250Section 68

displeased at the way the Ld.CIT(A) has dealt with the matter. We note that he has passed a cryptic and non-speaking order, simply reproducing the findings of the AO, ignoring the submission and the evidence filed by the assessee. We deprecate such an approach by the Appellate authority

Kapil Chamanlal Setia, Dhule vs. Addl/Joint/Dy/Asst.CIT/ITO, Itd, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 810/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.810/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 250

Tribunal, our observation referred above and decide the issues raised in the instant appeal as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act and pass a speaking order. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds raised by the assessee

Satyamev Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2036/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2036/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Satyamev Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1(1), Nashik. 1, Maratha Tower, Raviwar Karanja, Nashik – 422001. Maharashtra. Pan: Aakas2833C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2021-22 Dated 17.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 80P

following grounds of appeal : “11 The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for non prosecution of appeal without passing a speaking order adjudicating the grounds of appeal and detailed contentions advanced vide Statement of Facts and supporting documentary evidences uploaded electronically at the time of filing

Neuro Update Chennai, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1480/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sitharaman, CA &For Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. C.I.T
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

fall within the meaning of "charitable purpose" (more specifically educational) as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act. This failure constitutes a non-speaking order and a denial of proper appellate consideration. 6. The CIT(A) failed to take note of the fact that the delegate fees ... take into consideration of the elaborate written submissions made by the Appellant on multiple occasions, and therefore does not qualify as a valid speaking order. 11. In light of the above, and having established that the activities of the Appellant are charitable, it is humbly prayed that: a. The appellate

Gaurav Sehgal, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1652/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69C

income for the AY 2013-14 through electronic mode only. The AO has disposed the objections raised by assessee for reopening by an speaking order. 5.4 The Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.2,80,23,430/- u/s 69 of the Act. The AO has noted that an immovable

Deepak Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-26, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3416/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 69A

reason for his/her decision on each such point of determination. The Ld. CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of the appeal through a speaking order on merit on all the points for determination including each ground of appeal. It is evident from the perusal of section

Kajal Batra, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-52(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as above

ITA 2419/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

notice is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. 10.5 Further, it is seen that the assessing officer has recorded reasons precisely for the undisclosed income of Rs. 8,56,56,700/- was escaped

ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai Patel, Kheda

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

ITA 834/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.834/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 The Acit Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai बनाम/ Dy./Asst.Commissioner Of Patel V/S. Income Tax (Anand Circle) I C/O. Mahakali Saw Mill Anand – 388 001 Mansarovar Marker Kamla Kamia, Kheda – 387 320 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cmmpp 6784 N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mishal Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/02/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-2022. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether, On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10,64,04,151/-Made U/S 69C Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact The Assessee Failed To Substantiate The Expenditure Claimed With Supporting Evidences? Asst.Cit Vs. Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai Patel Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Mishal Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer and affording due opportunity of hearing to both parties. The CIT(A) shall thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Asst.CIT vs. Narendrakumar Hansrajbhai Patel Asst. Year : 2021-22 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), Aurangabad

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

ITA 648/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

For Appellant: Shri Nandkishor S. Daga &For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

officer shall state the points for determination and also consider the grounds taken by the appellant and his order should be a speaking order. 05. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not providing the enough opportunity of being heard. Considering the above, we request you to evaluate our grounds