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.

3 results for “reassessment”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,881Mumbai1,542Bangalore508Jaipur501Chennai448Ahmedabad394Kolkata305Hyderabad299Chandigarh230Pune165Indore121Raipur121Amritsar119Surat116Visakhapatnam109Rajkot94Nagpur78Cuttack60Guwahati59Patna52Cochin51Dehradun49Telangana46Lucknow44Ranchi41Agra36Allahabad26Karnataka23Jodhpur21SC11Calcutta8Varanasi6Orissa6Rajasthan5Panaji3Jabalpur2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2J&K1Uttarakhand1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 694Section 115B4Section 1473Section 143(3)3Section 143(2)3Addition to Income3Section 1442Section 1432Reassessment2Survey u/s 133A

MARIA ESTIBEIRO,PANAJI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal stands ALLOWED

ITA 34/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Maria Estibeiro L/H Of Jacintodas Estibeiro 781, St. Marys Colony, Miramar, Goa. Pan:Aabpe2798N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal Captioned Appellant Impugns Din & Order No. 1060336601(1) Dt. 31/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012- 13 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)
2

69,321/- being the sum of all financial transactions reflected/reported against assessee’s PAN as unexplained income under the head income from other sources u/s 56(2) of the Act and assessed the same to tax in the hands of appellant as the legal heir of the deceased assessee. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 28 Maria Estibeiro L/H of Jacintodas

RAMAPPA LACHAPPA SIDDAPUR,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

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

ITA 216/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 216/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ramappa Lachappa Siddapur, Vs I T O Ward(1), Dr Siddapur R L , B A -3, The Dr Ghogeri Building, . One Lotus County Apartment, Belgaum Road, Mandoli Road, Gokak-591307, Tilakwadi, Belagavi-590006, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No. Apxps8802C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 144Section 147

section 147 of the Act and sustaining the addition u/sec 69 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 25.07.2017 2 ITA. No. 216/PAN 2025. Ramappa Lachappa Sidapur. disclosing a total income of Rs.7,91,080/-. The assessing officer

MR. NAGRAJ GOPALKRISHNA,PHATTEPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1[5], BELAGAVI

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

ITA 400/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. A. S. Patil, Tax ConsultantFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Joshi, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 292BSection 69

Reassessment Proceedings which is mandatory and which is not curable mistake. Hence, Order Passed by the Income-Tax Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner [Appeals] is Bad-in-Law requires to be quashed. 2] The Learned Commissioner [Appeals] is not justified in treating Rs. 17,76,144 on account of excess Stock and Cash found in Survey as deemed income