ITAT Panaji Judgments — October 2021

SHRI MAHALAXMI CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,BELGAVI vs ITO, WARD - 1, NIPANI

ITA 78/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2021AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

KAKATI PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NYAMIT,BELGAVI vs ITO, WARD - 1(2), BELGAVI

ITA 85/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2021AY 2012-13Remanded

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without examining the assessee's submissions and documentary evidence. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after considering the relevant Supreme Court judgments and providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity.

LYNDON SOCORRO MONTEIRO,VERNA, GOA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

ITA 15/PAN/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.

SCORPIO IRON LTD,PANAJI vs ITO, WARD - 1(4), PANAJI

ITA 388/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA from the statute book meant that no additions could be made under that section. Following precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, the additions made on account of domestic transfer pricing were deleted.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs NAGAPPA DEVAPPA WADDAR, RAICHUR

ITA 358/PAN/2017[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.

M/S ABDULLA ASSOCIATES,NIPANI vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAVI

ITA 127/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.

BAHUBALI ALIAS SUNIL SUKUMAR JOLAPURE,MARGAO vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO

ITA 201/PAN/2018[2005-06]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2005-06Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.

SONALI NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), PANAJI

ITA 54/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.

LYNDON SOCORRO MONTEIRO,VERNA, GOA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

ITA 17/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.

SHRI MAHALAXMI URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT BANK LTD.,GOKAK vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), BELGAUM

ITA 118/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.

LYNDON SOCORRO MONTEIRO,VERNA, GOA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

ITA 16/PAN/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.

SRI NAGAPPA D. WADDAR.,BANGALORE vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BELGAUM.., BELGAUM

ITA 114/PAN/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This dismissal is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(3), BELGAVI vs M/S B. T. PATIL, BELGAVI

ITA 265/PAN/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer applied the benevolent CBDT Circular for earlier assessment years, the same benefit should continue for the current assessment year. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order extending the benefit of the Circular to the assessee was not erroneous.

SOCIAL CLUB AND KREEDA BHAVAN,BELGAVI vs ITO, WARD - 2(1), BELGAVI

ITA 385/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS. However, it directed the deletion of disallowance under Section 43B concerning luxury tax, stating it should not be included in business income for a mutual concern.

SHREE AMBEY FORGING PRIVAT LIMITED,PANAJI vs ITO, WARD - (4), PANAJI

ITA 389/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA from the statute book meant that no additions could be made under that section. Following precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, the additions made on account of domestic transfer pricing were deleted.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs NAGAPPA DEVAPPA WADDAR, RAICHUR

ITA 355/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2012-13Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

M/S INTERNATIONAL CENTRE,GOA vs THE CIT, (EXEMTIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 135/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal noted that the assessee had been granted relief by the CIT(A) and wished to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to this submission.

M/S EXAMBA JEEJAMATA MAHILA CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,BELGAUM vs ITO, WARD - 1, NIPANI

ITA 16/PAN/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) was against the principles of natural justice and that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the assessee's submissions and applicable judgments. The matter was remanded for a fresh adjudication.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs NAGAPPA DEVAPPA WADDAR, RAICHUR

ITA 356/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2013-14Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

RANESARDESAI WAMANRAO UDAISINGH,MARGAO vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, MARGAO

ITA 174/PAN/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that the tax arrears are ultimately resolved under the scheme.

BAHUBALI ALIAS SUNIL SUKUMAR JOLAPURE,MARGAO vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO

ITA 197/PAN/2018[2001-02]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2001-02Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, considering the compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, the parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeals.

BAHUBALI ALIAS SUNIL SUKUMAR JOLAPURE,MARGAO vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO

ITA 200/PAN/2018[2004-05]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2004-05Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, as the parties had opted for resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, the parties can approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs NAGAPPA DEVAPPA WADDAR, RAICHUR

ITA 357/PAN/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

M/S ADITI SCANS PVT. LTD,BIJAPUR vs ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, BIJAPUR

ITA 38/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed documents, but the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not considered them. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing and reasoned order after considering the documents and affording opportunities to the assessee.

SHRI MAHALAXMI URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT BANK LTD.,GOKAK vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), BELGAUM

ITA 117/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2013-14Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

RANESARDESAI WAMANRAO UDAISINGH,MARGAO vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, MARGAO

ITA 173/PAN/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2007-08Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

MAHENDRA NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), PANAJI

ITA 47/PAN/2018[2006-07]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2006-07Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

MAHENDRA NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), PANAJI

ITA 48/PAN/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2008-09Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

MAHENDRA NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), PANAJI

ITA 49/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2009-10Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

MAHENDRA NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), PANAJI

ITA 50/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2010-11Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

SONALI NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), PANAJI

ITA 51/PAN/2018[2006/07]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

SONALI NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), PANAJI

ITA 52/PAN/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2008-09Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

SONALI NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), PANAJI

ITA 53/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2009-10Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)), BELAGAVI vs SMT KAVITA R KATARIA, BELAGAVI

ITA 269/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2012-13Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees and the department had duly complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BELAGAVI vs SMT SUNITA S KATARIA, BELAGAVI

ITA 270/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn, in accordance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This decision is subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the scheme, parties can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of appeals.

MR. PRASAD VASUDEV KENI,PANAJI vs ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

ITA 350/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2021AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not complied with the legal requirement of recording satisfaction before making the disallowance under Section 14A. Following the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

MRS. VINI PRASAD KENI,PANAJI vs ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

ITA 351/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2021AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not complied with the legal requirement of recording satisfaction before making the disallowance under Section 14A. Following the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

ENTERTAINMENT SOCIETY OF GOA.,PANAJI vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI., PANAJI

ITA 240/PAN/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed4 Oct 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the very basis for invoking it (lack of registration) was subsequently overturned by the Bombay High Court. The High Court restored the registration under Section 12AA in favour of the assessee.

SHRI DEEPAK GURUNATH GOJAGEKAR,BELAGAVI vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BELAGAVI

ITA 435/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed4 Oct 2021AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee sufficient opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

M/S SATISH SUGARS LIMITED,BELGAVI vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELAGAVI

ITA 25/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed4 Oct 2021AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

SHRI DEEPAK GURUNATH GOJAGEKAR,BELAGAVI vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BELAGAVI

ITA 434/PAN/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed4 Oct 2021AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee sufficient opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

PARKKOT MARITIME AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,GOA vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

ITA 182/PAN/2015[2011-12]Status: Disposed4 Oct 2021AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had rejected the revenue's Special Leave Petition. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to grant the benefit of Section 80-IA in light of the High Court's judgment, considering other relevant provisions.

PARKKOT MARITIME AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,GOA vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, MARGAO., MARGAO

ITA 181/PAN/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed4 Oct 2021AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had rejected the revenue's Special Leave Petition. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to grant the benefit of Section 80-IA in light of the High Court's judgment, considering other relevant provisions.