BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

13 results for “disallowance”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,026Delhi1,061Chennai581Ahmedabad365Kolkata331Jaipur310Bangalore257Pune203Hyderabad191Chandigarh179Surat172Rajkot157Raipur141Indore123Cochin113Visakhapatnam83Nagpur66Amritsar66Guwahati59Lucknow47Agra46Cuttack41Allahabad34Jodhpur31Patna30SC20Ranchi19Dehradun16Panaji13Jabalpur8Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 80P24Section 80P(2)(a)18Section 14715Section 15514Section 25011Section 143(1)11Section 143(3)11Section 1489Addition to Income7Deduction

JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 64/PAN/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D. E. RobinsonFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 5A

reopening of assessment made u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act is valid and ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 13. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition made in the hands of the assessee in terms of operation of provisions

6
Disallowance4
Reassessment3

JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 65/PAN/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D. E. RobinsonFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 5A

reopening of assessment made u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act is valid and ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 13. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition made in the hands of the assessee in terms of operation of provisions

SONALI MAHENDRA NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 313/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 263Section 50C

disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition made by the AO on the ground of alleged failure to furnish requisite documentary evidences either before the AO or during the appeal proceedings despite the fact that the same was duly provided. Failure to adhere to mandatory procedure for reopening of assessment

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

ITA 40/PAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

reopened by the Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act after prior approval Ld. PCIT dt. 30/03/2019. 3.3 After considering the submission of the appellant, the Ld. AO culminated the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26/12/2019 by disallowing

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

ITA 41/PAN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

reopened by the Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act after prior approval Ld. PCIT dt. 30/03/2019. 3.3 After considering the submission of the appellant, the Ld. AO culminated the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26/12/2019 by disallowing

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

ITA 43/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

reopened by the Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act after prior approval Ld. PCIT dt. 30/03/2019. 3.3 After considering the submission of the appellant, the Ld. AO culminated the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26/12/2019 by disallowing

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

ITA 42/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

reopened by the Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act after prior approval Ld. PCIT dt. 30/03/2019. 3.3 After considering the submission of the appellant, the Ld. AO culminated the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26/12/2019 by disallowing

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

ITA 38/PAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

reopened by the Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act after prior approval Ld. PCIT dt. 30/03/2019. 3.3 After considering the submission of the appellant, the Ld. AO culminated the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26/12/2019 by disallowing

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

ITA 39/PAN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

reopened by the Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act after prior approval Ld. PCIT dt. 30/03/2019. 3.3 After considering the submission of the appellant, the Ld. AO culminated the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26/12/2019 by disallowing

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 34/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

disallowances. Finding appellant being indifferent, the Ld. NFAC vide para 4.5 advanced ex-parte on merits and upheld the disallowance/addition by a reasoned order. ITAT-Panaji Page 17 of 32 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Vs JCIT/ACIT ITA Nos.034 & 035/PAN/2025 AY: 2011-12 & 2014-15 20. The perusal of case record of impugned proceedings for AY 2014-15 revealed much alike

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 35/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

disallowances. Finding appellant being indifferent, the Ld. NFAC vide para 4.5 advanced ex-parte on merits and upheld the disallowance/addition by a reasoned order. ITAT-Panaji Page 17 of 32 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Vs JCIT/ACIT ITA Nos.034 & 035/PAN/2025 AY: 2011-12 & 2014-15 20. The perusal of case record of impugned proceedings for AY 2014-15 revealed much alike

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 132/PAN/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2006-2007 M/S Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. Salgaonkar Bhava, Altino, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aabcs8862N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Impugns The Order Dt. 20/03/2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Dealt With Order Dt. 20/12/2011 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2006-07.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

reopened u/147 of the Act to reassess the income escaped the assessment. For the non- compliance on the part of the assessee, the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act culminated by an order dt. 20/12/2011 wherein the Ld. AO made to additions owning to; (1) difference of business revenue/receipts of 87,62,350/- remained undisclosed in the return

MR. AGNELO SOCORRO JOAQUIM VIEGAS,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), PANAJI

ITA 69/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 069/Pan/2025 & Sa 06/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Agnelo Socorro Joaquim Viegas H. No. 373, Galliwaddo, Taleigao, Caranzalem, Goa-403002. Pan : Akapv9049C . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Sanket Deshmukh[‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1073026397(1) Dt. 07/02/2025 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals(2), Ahmedabad [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Sprung Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 27/12/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income

For Appellant: Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sanket Deshmukh[‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 44ASection 5ASection 69A

reopening of assessee’s case u/s 147 of the Act. Pursuant to reassessment notice the appellant filed his return declaring income of ₹1,53,590/- and claimed that the said income was offered on presumptive taxation basis. The said return was subjected to scrutiny and the appellant was called upon to adduce documentary evidence in support of his claim