← 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

Rajesh Kumar Morodia, New Delhi vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 53(2), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 5457/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Rajesh Kumar Morodia, Vs. Ito, Ward 53(2), H.No. 1539, Gali Number 5, Delhi. Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. (Pan: Aphpm3594B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 69C

merit and only noted that there is no explanation from the assessee, he upheld the action of the AO by passing a non-speaking order. Therefore, in view of the factual matrix, as aforesaid and in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues in dispute to the file

Katrathal Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Katrathal vs. ITO Ward 1 Sikar, Sikar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

time and noticee is entitled to file their objection to such notice and assessing officer is bound to dispose of same by passing a speaking order—Though Explanation 3 inserted by amendment empowers assessing officer to assess income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment when such issue

Shaila Omprakash Jethale, Pune vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1365/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133(6)Section 138Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Even though the appeals are ex-parte, assessments are ex-parte the Ld. CIT(A) has to dispose cases by passing speaking order. The comparison of both the orders of Ld. CIT(A) indicates that findings are recorded devoid of merits. 22. Lastly, it is submitted that even though Tribunal ... issues on quantum additions as well as penalty to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas

Shaila Omprakash Jethale, Pune vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1364/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133(6)Section 138Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Even though the appeals are ex-parte, assessments are ex-parte the Ld. CIT(A) has to dispose cases by passing speaking order. The comparison of both the orders of Ld. CIT(A) indicates that findings are recorded devoid of merits. 22. Lastly, it is submitted that even though Tribunal ... issues on quantum additions as well as penalty to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1565/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1555/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Respondent: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Mitra Instritution Bhowanipur Branch, Kolkata vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 742/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 80GSection 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 in accordance with law. Hence, all the grounds of appeal are allowed for structural purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed

The Salesian Sisters, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 576/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 264

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. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support

D L Agarwala Charitable Trust, North Twenty Four Parganas vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 556/KOL/2025[---]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.555&556/Kol/2025 D L. Agarwala Charitable Trust……………..……….……….……….……Appellant 336, Canal Street, Sreebhumi S O Lake Town, North 24 Parganas, W.B- 700048.. [Pan: Aabtd5563G] Vs. Cit (Exemption), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Raju Mukherjee, Fcs & N. D Mimani, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 23.03.2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] Rejecting The Separate Applications Filed In Form 10Ab For Final Approval As Per The Provisions Of Sections 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arise From The Final Registration U/S 12A Of The Act Which Is Compulsory For Getting Subsequent Registration U/S 80G Of The Act Which Are Interconnected In Both The Appeals & Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee With Delays Of 21 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of The Delays.

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

justice, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after keeping in mind the facts as well as documents filed by the assessee. Accordingly, ITA No.555/Kol/2025 is allowed for statistical

D L Agarwala Charitable Trust, North Twenty Four Parganas vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/KOL/2025[---]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.555&556/Kol/2025 D L. Agarwala Charitable Trust……………..……….……….……….……Appellant 336, Canal Street, Sreebhumi S O Lake Town, North 24 Parganas, W.B- 700048.. [Pan: Aabtd5563G] Vs. Cit (Exemption), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Raju Mukherjee, Fcs & N. D Mimani, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 23.03.2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] Rejecting The Separate Applications Filed In Form 10Ab For Final Approval As Per The Provisions Of Sections 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arise From The Final Registration U/S 12A Of The Act Which Is Compulsory For Getting Subsequent Registration U/S 80G Of The Act Which Are Interconnected In Both The Appeals & Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee With Delays Of 21 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of The Delays.

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

justice, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after keeping in mind the facts as well as documents filed by the assessee. Accordingly, ITA No.555/Kol/2025 is allowed for statistical

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Decorum Infrastructure Private Limited, Howrah

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1762/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Court and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition by passing a reasoned and speaking order which does not require any interference. Accordingly, 7 we upheld the same on this issue and dismiss the ground no. 3 of the appeal

Deepsikha Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1714/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deepsikha Distributors Pvt. Ltd..……………………………….…….……Appellant 15/2/1, Deodar Street, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaacd9515E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata..………………………..………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.06.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The 2. Business Of Investment In Shares & Filed Its Return Of Income On For A.Y. 2012-13 U/S 139(1) Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.279/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Passed On 17.03.2015 Assessing Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.1,15,00,279/- By Adding Rs.1,15,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act. After That, The Assessee Went In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) & The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 30.06.2015 Allowed The Appeal Deepsikha Distributors Pvt. Ltd Of The Assessee. Thereafter, The Revenue Preferred Appeal Before The Itat Wherein The Tribunal Set Aside The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) & Asked The Assessing Officer To Pass De Novo Assessment & The Assessing Officer Vide Fresh Assessment Order U/S 254/250/143(3) Of The Act Sustained The Same Addition Of Rs.1,15,00,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act As Unexplained Cash Credit.

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 68

assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to the assessee of hearing and to pass a speaking order after considering the documents submitted by the assessee. The assessee is directed to effectively cooperate in the remand proceedings by submitting necessary explanations

Shyam Greenfield Developer Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1164/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

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 is required u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make

Sudha, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2360/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2360/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Sudha, The Ito, 4-254, Panchayat Street, Ward-4, Avaraikulam, Tirunelveli. Radhapuram, Tirunelveli-627 133. [Pan: Gbtps 0255 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand ... inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order

Sri Ramalingam Radha, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Circl-I, Erode

ITA 2342/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2342/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Ramalingam Radha, Oa-13, Kumaresapuram, 7Th Street, Rajiv Nagar, Tiruchengode, Namakkal-637 211. [Pan: Accpr 2234 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Acit, Circle-1, Erode. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.R. Venkata Raman, Fca : Mr.Krishna Murthy At, Jcit : 22.10.2025 : 27.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.06.2025 For Ay 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal, On The Ground That The Assessee Did Not Respond To Three Notices Issued. 2. Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Tax (Appeals) Ought Not To Have Relied On A Few Decisions Rendered Under Other Acts & On A Few Under The Income Tax Act, None Of Which Apply To The Facts Of The Assessee'S Case. :: 2 ::

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH: CHENΝΑΙ श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Pichaimani Gunasundari, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Nc-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2333/CHNY/2025[2019-20 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2333/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Pichaimani Gunasundari, The Ito, No.65, Saratha Flats, Non-Corporate Ward-22(1), Ganapathi Nagar, Tambaram. 4Th Street, Urapakkam, Kancheepuram-603 210. [Pan: Cqgpg 6518 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand ... Gunasundari :: 8 :: to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order

Vipul Mathuradas Thakkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 4936/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvipul Mathuradas Thakkar Ito Ward 3(2), 402, Madhav Baug, Gaushala Road, Rani Mansion, Kalyan Shivaji Path, Kalyan, Maharashtra- Vs. Maharashtra-421301 421301 Pan: Aaipt0824B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Haridas Bhatt, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

appellate proceedings. In view of all these circumstances, there is no credible evidence supporting the case of the appellant, instead AO has passed a speaking order with contents of the statement and modus operandi of the group and concerns. In view of that the addition made

Surbhit Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram Sr. Adv.& Shri Shashi Bekkal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 41(1)

when the reassessment was initiated for the specific issue of creditors, which was examined by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) and has passed a speaking order considering the law and facts hence, the order under section 263 of the Act may be quashed and set aside. 3. Without prejudice ... Impex Private Limited reassessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, and the order of the AO was a speaking order after application of mind. The creditors preferred an appeal against the winding-up orders of the Bombay High Court, which was decided on July

Dhl Global Forwarding Freight Shared Services (India) LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (PCIT)-41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2109/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Dhl Global Forwarding V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Freight Shared Services बनाम Income Tax (Pcit) – 41, Room (India) Llp No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 5Th Floor, A Wing 247 Park, To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Lbs Road, Vikhroli West, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400083, Maharashtra Mumbai–400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapfd3128F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain a/w S.Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40a

submission made by the assessee before him. Needless to state, the AO shall give the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order after taking into consideration the explanation and supporting evidence submitted by the assessee. 6. Before us, the ld.DR has placed reliance on the order

Shalibhadra Exprorts Pvt Ltd, Mumabi vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1287/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan KR. Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

erred in not disposing the objections filed by the appellant against the reopening of proceedings by passing a speaking order. (6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. erred in reopening the case on the basis of statements recorded on oath