SHREE MALLIKARJUN SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

68,15,177/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) r.w.s147 of the Act dated 30.03.2015.\n4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the A.O but has sustained the validity of reassessment proceedings u/sec147

SHRI RIYAZULHAQ F PATHAN,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPPANI

The appeal is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 21/Pan/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Riyazulhaq F Pathan, Near Central Excise Quarter, Nipani Tq. Chikodi, Belagavi -591237 Pan:Ahdpp8150A . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nipani . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/07/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Belagavi [‘Cit(A)’ In Short] Dt. 30/10/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ In Short] Which In Turn Ascended Out Of The Assessment Order Dt. 28/12/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nipani [‘Ao’ In Short].

69A r.w.s. 155BBE and excess stock of ₹68,35,590/- u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Challenging the application of provisions of section

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

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

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/- & ₹68,000/- into

SHASHIKALA BHIMACHARYA MALAGI,GOKAK, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, WARD-1, GOKAK, GOKAK, KARNATKA

The appeal is partly allowed in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 180/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shashikala Bhimacharya Malagi 0, Soubhagya, Kalyan Housing Colony, Gokak, Belgaum-591307 Pan : Bdypm3708B . . . . . . .Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gokak. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Himanshu Gandhi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. 1055706480(1) Dt. 04/09/2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 20/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

69A and brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. When matter travelled up in appeal, the Ld. NFAC countenanced the addition echoing with the views of his tax authority below. While disbelieving the explanation tendered by the appellant, the tax authorities below of the view that, a pattern of regular cash withdrawal over a period of five explicitly demonstrates