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 “section 68”+ Section 5Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka298Delhi105Mumbai90Pune67Hyderabad33Kolkata32Bangalore30Chennai28Jaipur20Ahmedabad18Raipur17Surat9SC8Indore7Ranchi7Telangana6Panaji3Lucknow3Chandigarh3Amritsar2Cuttack2Patna2Nagpur1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)8Section 5A4Section 253(1)3Section 2503Section 44A3Addition to Income3Section 682Section 1472Unexplained Cash Credit2Cash Deposit

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)
2
Section 44A
Section 5A
Section 69A

section 5A of the Act is automatic or voluntary? And whether such application confined merely to returned income? 3. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that; 3.1 the assessee an individual was identified as non-filer. Upon receipt of information that for the year under consideration the assessee deposited cash of ₹12,32,000/- & ₹68

SWAPNIL PRABHAKAR NAIK,KHANDOLA MARCELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(3) PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 121/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 5ASection 68

68 without appreciating the supporting ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 10 Swapnil Prabhakar Naik Vs ITO ITA No.: 121/PAN/2025 AY: 2017-18 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned JCIT(A)-6, Mumbai and AO erred in making additions without appreciating the merits of the case and the relevant documentary evidences submitted in the course

SURAJDATTA SAGUN MORAJKAR,NERUL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI GOA, PANAJI

ITA 122/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Surajdatta Sagun Morajkar C/O. Sun Estate Developers, Next To Sal De Goa, Bhatti Waddo, Bardez, Goa-403114 Pan : Aempm7614J . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Deshmukh Prakash [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 5ASection 68

section 5A of the Act was for the year under consideration engaged in the business of real estate development and construction in the name & style of ‘Sun Estate Developer’ and also a partner in M/s ‘SM Venture.’ The assessee filed his return of income on 30/03/2018 declaring total income at ₹4,47,72,090/- which was subjected to scrutiny