DEVASHRI NIRMAN LLP,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, PANAJI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals, stating the issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10) was covered by the jurisdictional High Court's order. The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeals.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed three appeals against orders of the NFAC for assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16. The appeals involved common issues regarding deduction under Section 80IB(10) and some ad hoc disallowances.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is entitled to proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) and whether certain ad hoc disallowances were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI – VIRTUAL COURT
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
ORDER PER BENCH : These are the appeals filed by assessee against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 09.02.2023 for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively.
2 to 48/PAN/2023 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned three appeals of the assessee, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.
At the outset, the ld. AR for the appellant filed a letter dated Nil seeking permission to withdraw the above captioned appeals. The relevant contents of the said letter are as under :- “..... All three AYs had a common issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10). The Commissioner (Appeals) in all three AYs followed the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in the assessee’s own case for earlier AYs and therefore allowed proportionate deduction u/s 80IB (10). Since the issue is covered by the order of the jurisdictional high court, the assessee does not wish to pursue the captioned appeals in the present AYs. In the appeal for AY 2013-14, three additional issues regarding ad hoc disallowances of entertainment and hospitality expenses, service charges and conveyance expenses are present. However, due to the amounts involved being less, the assessee does not wish to press these issues as well. The Hon’ble Bench was pleased to permit the assessee to file the present letter in order to withdraw the appeals for all three AYs. .....”
On the other hand, the ld. Department Representative has no serious objection to permit the withdrawal of the above captioned appeals.
In the circumstances, we hereby grant permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeals. Accordingly, the above captioned three appeals stands dismissed as withdrawn.
More judgments on Section 80IB(10)
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Constructions, ThaneITA 8234/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- ACIT-24(1), Piramal Chambers vs Atul Properties, MumbaiITA 8043/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-24(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs Atul Properties, MumbaiITA 8042/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2012-13
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Enterprises, ThaneITA 8209/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2010-11
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Enterprises, ThaneITA 8208/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2009-10
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026