← 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

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 2,81,669/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. 3. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when ... erred in confirming penalty of Rs.1,61,620/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. 3. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not leviable when

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 2,81,669/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. 3. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when ... erred in confirming penalty of Rs.1,61,620/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. 3. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not leviable when

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 2,81,669/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. 3. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when ... erred in confirming penalty of Rs.1,61,620/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. 3. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not leviable when

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 2,81,669/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. 3. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when ... erred in confirming penalty of Rs.1,61,620/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. 3. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not leviable when

Pydah Venkata Narayana Suseela Raghava Ratnamma Academy of Education, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 345/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.345/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: --------) Vs. Pydah Venkata Narayana Income Tax Officer-Exemption Ward Income Tax Officer Suseela Raghava Ratnamma Aayakar Bhavan, Kambala Cheruvu Academy Of Education Veerabhadrapuram Door No. 20-1-65, Dhriti Nivas Rajahmundry – 533105 Kakinada – 533001 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaetp6235C] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Ld.CIT(E). 5. At the outset, Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld. CIT(E) has not passed a speaking order for the denial of registration to the assessee. He further submitted that various documentary evidences have been provided before Ld. CIT(E) but he has casually ... direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish required details and to decide the case on merits by passing a speaking order. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate and furnish necessary documents / information as required by the Ld.CIT(E). 9. In the result, appeal

Gaurav Logistics, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1111/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.:1111/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Logistics, Income Tax Officer 32, Gaurav Vara, New Avadi Road, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai 600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Aaffg-1902-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hithesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Dated 14.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Filed A Memorandum Of Addition Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Validity Of The Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148 Of Gaurav Logistics

For Appellant: Shri Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 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

Chhotelal Punaulal, Narsinghpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-(3), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 84/JAB/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution and has not decided the appeal of the assessee on the merits and has not passed a speaking order. In view of provisions of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act, the learned CIT(A) has statutory duty to pass a speaking

Rajvansh Hotel, Gadarwara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Narsinghpur

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

ITA 145/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

learned CIT(A); and to admit the appeal. The learned CIT(A) is further directed to pass de novo order, which should be a speaking order on merits, on various grounds of appeal in the assessee’s appeal filed in the office of the learned

Vishal Datt, Jabalpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 133/JAB/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. The learned AR for the assessee further submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner in violation of the provisions ... further submitted that the learned CIT(A) is duty bound u/s 250(6) of the IT Act to pass a speaking order on various grounds of appeal, on merits, but learned CIT(A) failed to do so. In view of the foregoing, learned AR for the assessee submitted, the impugned

Aapka Faisla Gold Palace, Shahdol vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jabalpur

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

ITA 120/JAB/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 Apka Faisala Gold Palace V. Acit-Central Circle Gandhi Chowk Shahdol, 291 Ramnath Building, Madhya Pradesh-484001. Napier Town, Jabalpur- 482001. Tan/Pan:Aarfa8456D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Ad Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1
Section 115BSection 129Section 69B

aside the impugned order and restore the grounds to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by way of speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed

Shree Jee Educational Trust, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Excemption, Jabalpur

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

ITA 191/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143Section 250(6)Section 253(3)

sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. The learned AR for the assessee further submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner for violation of the provisions ... further submitted that the learned CIT(A) was duty bound u/s 250(6) of the IT Act to pass a speaking order on various grounds of appeal, on merits, but learned CIT(A) failed to do so. In view of the foregoing, learned AR for the assessee submitted, the impugned

Jabalpur Entertainment Complexes Private Limited, Jabalpur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru & DCIT, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 184/JAB/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Apoorva Rajesh Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250

other hand, Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR (hereinafter referred to as the ld. DR) pointed out that the ld. JCIT(A) had passed a speaking order and pointed out that the assessee was not eligible for the concessional rate of tax under section 115BAA, because it had not fulfilled

Uttam Krishnani, Rewa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Katni

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250(6)

decision on merits. In view of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act, the learned CIT(A) has statutory duty to pass a speaking order on merits on the various grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. Having regard to the same, we set aside the impugned appellate order

Anil Kumar Gupta, Rewa vs. ITO- Ward-1, Rewa

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

ITA 160/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 253(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

learned CIT(A); and to admit the appeal. The learned CIT(A) is further directed to pass de novo order, which should be a speaking order on merits, on various grounds of appeal in the assessee’s appeal filed in the office of the learned

Parmanand Nagwani, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, Katni

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

ITA 115/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 250(6)

sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. The learned AR for the assessee further submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner for violation of the provisions

Parmanand Nagwani, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, Katni

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

ITA 114/JAB/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 250(6)

sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. The learned AR for the assessee further submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner for violation of the provisions

Parmanand Nagwani, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, Katni

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

ITA 113/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 250(6)

sufficient time and opportunity to the assessee. The learned AR for the assessee further submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner for violation of the provisions

Indo Human Rights Care, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 5/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 4 & 5/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: --------) Vs. Indo Human Rights Care Income Tax Officer-Exemption Income Tax Office D.No. 11-240/1 Infinity Towers Krishnanagar Shankarmatam Road, Visakhapatnam Durganagar Pos Naidu Thota, Pendurthi Mandal Visakhapatnam – 530029 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aacti1156R] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ca : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

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

full details for verification. 6. At the outset, Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld. CIT(E) has not passed a speaking order for the denial of registration to the assessee. He further submitted that various documentary evidences have been provided before ... Human Rights Care provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish required details and to decide the case on merits by passing a speaking order. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate and furnish necessary documents / information as required by the Ld.CIT(E). 10. In the result, both

Indo Human Rights Care, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 4/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 4 & 5/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: --------) Vs. Indo Human Rights Care Income Tax Officer-Exemption Income Tax Office D.No. 11-240/1 Infinity Towers Krishnanagar Shankarmatam Road, Visakhapatnam Durganagar Pos Naidu Thota, Pendurthi Mandal Visakhapatnam – 530029 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aacti1156R] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ca : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

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

full details for verification. 6. At the outset, Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld. CIT(E) has not passed a speaking order for the denial of registration to the assessee. He further submitted that various documentary evidences have been provided before ... Human Rights Care provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish required details and to decide the case on merits by passing a speaking order. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate and furnish necessary documents / information as required by the Ld.CIT(E). 10. In the result, both

Vijayawada Association of Genito Urinary Surgeons, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Rajahmundry

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

ITA 199/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.199/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: --------) Vs. Vijayawada Association Of Income Tax Officer-Exemption Ward Rajahmundry Genito Urinary Surgeons Andhra Pradesh 6-264, Penamaluru S.O. Penamaluru Krishna – 521139 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aagav7376K] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ca : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Ld.CIT(E). 5. At the outset, Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld. CIT(E) has not passed a speaking order for the denial of registration to the assessee. He further submitted that various documentary evidences have been provided before Ld. CIT(E) but he has casually ... direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish required details and to decide the case on merits by passing a speaking order. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate and furnish necessary documents / information as required by the Ld.CIT(E). 9. In the result, appeal