ITAT Panaji Judgments — September 2023

PRATEEK MENEZES MEMORIAL FOUNATION,PANAJI vs CIT (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

ITA 108/PAN/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2023AY 2022-23Dismissed

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue's representative did not object to this request.

PADMA SHRI VAMAN SARDESAI MEMORIAL TRUST,PANAJI vs CIT, (EXEMPTION), BENGALORE

ITA 107/PAN/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2023AY 2022-23Dismissed

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal applications.

MARIA CRESCENCIA MENEZES MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PANAJI vs CIT, (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

ITA 106/PAN/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2023AY 2022-23Dismissed

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal applications.

M/S ABBAS SHABUDDIN SAHEB,NIPANI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI, NIPANI

ITA 461/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE is not applicable as the disclosed income was from business and offered under the head 'income from business'. The Tribunal also held that this income should be included in book profits for computing partner's remuneration.

CESAR AND MARIA EMILIA MENEZES TRUST,PANAJI vs CIT (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

ITA 109/PAN/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2023AY 2022-23Dismissed

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal applications.

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

ITA 81/PAN/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

ITA 80/PAN/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The revenue representative reported no objection to the withdrawal.

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

ITA 79/PAN/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The Revenue reported no objection to the withdrawal of the appeals.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

ITA 99/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that royalty is not a tax and therefore Section 43B is not attracted. It also held that the conversion charges paid were for removing a restriction and were revenue in nature, not capital expenditure. The issue of suppression of sales was not explicitly detailed in the provided text but the overall outcome suggests it was also decided in favor of the assessee.

OVERSEAS BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,HONDA vs ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

ITA 223/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to submit evidence.

M/S M.M. BAGWAN & BROS.,VIJAYAPUR vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELAGAVI

ITA 211/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO had not examined the issues pointed out by the Pr. CIT. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

M/S SALITHO ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - M1, MARGAO

ITA 72/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that royalty is not a tax and therefore Section 43B is not attracted. It also held that the conversion charges paid were for removing a restriction and were revenue in nature, not capital expenditure. The issue of suppression of sales was not explicitly detailed in the provided text but the overall outcome suggests it was also decided in favor of the assessee.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

ITA 100/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that royalty is not a tax and therefore Section 43B is not attracted. It also held that the conversion charges paid were for removing a restriction and were revenue in nature, not capital expenditure. The issue of suppression of sales was not explicitly detailed in the provided text but the overall outcome suggests it was also decided in favor of the assessee.

EDC LIMITED.,PANAJI vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), NFAC, DELHI, PANAJI

ITA 98/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that it is a settled principle that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for computing expenditure related to exempt income. The AO's disallowance was confirmed by the CIT(A).

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

ITA 83/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of all the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

ITA 82/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of all appeals. The Revenue reported no objection to the withdrawal.

SIDDHANTH EX - SERVICEMEN SECURITY SERVICES,VASCO vs DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 90/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction on employee's contribution to PF/ESI, it must be deposited on or before the due date specified under the respective statutes. Failure to do so disentitles the assessee to the deduction.

M/S. AHILIABAI SARDESSAI,PANAJI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI

ITA 73/PAN/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the AO's methodology for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) needed reconsideration. The issue was remanded to the AO to consider only those investments that yielded exempt income.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELAGAVI vs SHRI SOMESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT., BELGAVI

ITA 408/PAN/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that there was no clear basis for the AO's valuation and that both parties agreed the matter required fresh examination by the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

TUMKUR MINERALS PVT. LTD,VASCO vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

ITA 401/PAN/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments made for ore analysis charges were for services utilized for earning income from a source outside India. Therefore, these payments fell within the exclusionary clause of Section 9(1)(vii)(b) and were not taxable in India, meaning no TDS was required.

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KONNUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

ITA 111/PAN/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) for interest earned on investments with cooperative banks is covered by judicial precedents in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the revision order by the PCIT was not sustainable.

THE BHANDARI CO-OP CREDIT SOIETY LIMITED,PANAJI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), PANAJI

ITA 102/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and also under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Since the issue was covered by judicial precedents in favour of the assessee, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous.

M/S. AHILIABAI SARDESSAI,PANAJI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI

ITA 74/PAN/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found that the AO's methodology for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) needed reconsideration. The issue was remanded to the AO to consider only those investments that yielded exempt income.

M/S CHARIS AGRO AND COLD STORAGE,BELGAVI vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAVI

ITA 19/PAN/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The ITAT held that the Pr. CIT had the jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 154, as the issue of non-levy of capital gains under Section 45(4) was indeed raised in the original Section 263 proceedings. Therefore, the assessee's grounds failed.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs GOA CARBON LTD., PANAJI

ITA 178/PAN/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal, following its own precedent, remanded the issues concerning forward contracts and forward premium expenses back to the Assessing Officer for verification and re-computation.

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), PANAJI., PANAJI

ITA 55/PAN/2017[2003-04]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2003-04Dismissed

The CIT(A) was justified in not allowing 100% of certified export profits as this claim was not part of the original assessment order. The tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI., BELLARY vs SHRI NAGAPP D. WADDAR., RAICHUR

ITA 128/PAN/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. However, the Revenue was given liberty to apply for revival if exceptions were found later.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs GOA CARBON LTD., PANAJI

ITA 177/PAN/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal, following its own precedent, remanded the issues concerning forward contracts and forward premium expenses back to the Assessing Officer for verification and re-computation.

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KONNUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

ITA 109/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) for interest earned on investments with cooperative banks is covered by judicial precedents in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the revision order by the PCIT was not sustainable.

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KONNUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

ITA 110/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) for interest earned on investments with cooperative banks is covered by judicial precedents in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the revision order by the PCIT was not sustainable.

THE BHANDARI CO-OP CREDIT SOIETY LIMITED,PANAJI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), PANAJI

ITA 101/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and also under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Since the issue was covered by judicial precedents in favour of the assessee, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous.

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,FATORDA vs ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI

ITA 49/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided party-wise details of brokerage payments, and the rate of brokerage paid was reasonable and consistent with previous years where similar deductions were allowed. Therefore, the disallowance was unjustified.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs SHRI AJIT MITTAL, PANAJI

ITA 69/PAN/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that for an unabated assessment year, no addition can be made under section 153A if no incriminating material is found during the search. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs SHRI AJIT MITTAL, PANAJI

ITA 70/PAN/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that for an unabated assessment year, no addition can be made under section 153A if no incriminating material is found during the search. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

DINESH BHIKAMCHAND MEHTA,BELAGAVI vs THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

ITA 44/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The tribunal held that it would be just and fair to set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the file of the Principal CIT for passing a fresh revisionary order after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and considering their submissions.

SURENDRA BHARAT CHAUGALE,CHIKODI vs PR. CIT, HUBLI

ITA 37/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's presumption of undisclosed income was not justified, especially since the assessee provided a detailed explanation for lower expenses which the AO accepted. The AO's view was not legally or factually unsustainable.

SHRI ALEXENDER FERNANDES,NAGOA vs DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE - 2(2), BENGALURU

ITA 36/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

MRS. MARIA NITA FURTADO,MARGAO vs ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MARGAO

ITA 22/PAN/2021[2008-09]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2023AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid, and the assessment order was set aside.

MR. CARMO VASCO JACINTO FURTADO,MARGAO vs ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MARGAO

ITA 21/PAN/2021[2008-09]Status: Disposed13 Sept 2023AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid, and the assessment order was set aside.

M/S RAVIKIRAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs NATIONAL E - ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 93/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal, following the decision of a coordinate bench and various High Courts, held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on surplus funds invested with scheduled banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

SHRI VARDHAMAN URBAN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,KUDCHI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BELAGAVI

ITA 91/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal remitted the issue of interest income from associate members to the Assessing Officer for verification of state legislature provisions regarding 'member' definition. For interest income from surplus investments, the Tribunal allowed the deduction, following the view that it partakes the character of business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

THE CITY CO -OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 95/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits made with co-operative banks and scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The reasoning of the lower authorities was found unacceptable.

M/S RAVIKIRAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

ITA 94/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal, following the decision of a coordinate bench and various High Courts, held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on surplus funds invested with scheduled banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

M/S RAVIKIRAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, BELAGAVI

ITA 92/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal, following the decision of a coordinate bench and various High Courts, held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on surplus funds invested with scheduled banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 56/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q Q3]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2023Allowed