ITAT Panaji Judgments — February 2025

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO vs SHRI ROHIT RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

ITA 253/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders suffered from non-compliance with Rule 46A of the IT Rules and provisions of Section 251(1) and 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the orders were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

VGM EXPORT,VASCO vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO

ITA 114/PAN/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the forex fluctuation loss on the EEFC account balance, representing circulating capital, is a revenue expenditure deductible under Section 37(1). This decision was based on established judicial precedents.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO vs SHRI SHANU PAI PANANDIKAR (HUF), MARGAO

ITA 285/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders suffered from non-compliance with Rule 46A of the IT Rules and provisions of Section 251(1) and 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the orders were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, MARGAO vs SMT RAJANI RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIUKAAR, MARGAO

ITA 257/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders suffered from non-compliance with Rule 46A of the IT Rules and provisions of Section 251(1) and 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the orders were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, MARGAO vs SHRI RAJ SHANU PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

ITA 287/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders suffered from non-compliance with Rule 46A of the IT Rules and provisions of Section 251(1) and 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the orders were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO vs SHRI ROHAN RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

ITA 256/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders suffered from non-compliance with Rule 46A of the IT Rules and provisions of Section 251(1) and 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the orders were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO vs SHRI ROHIT RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

ITA 254/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders suffered from non-compliance with Rule 46A of the IT Rules and provisions of Section 251(1) and 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the orders were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO vs SMT KUNDA SHANU PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

ITA 288/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders suffered from non-compliance with Rule 46A of the IT Rules and provisions of Section 251(1) and 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the orders were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO vs SHRI SHANU PAI PANANDIKAR (HUF), MARGAO

ITA 286/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders suffered from non-compliance with Rule 46A of the IT Rules and provisions of Section 251(1) and 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the orders were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO vs SHRI ROHAN RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

ITA 255/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders suffered from non-compliance with Rule 46A of the IT Rules and provisions of Section 251(1) and 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the orders were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

TRUPTI MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,MARGAO vs ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

ITA 282/PAN/2017[1997-98]Status: Disposed20 Feb 2025AY 1997-98Withdrawn

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's election to participate in the DTVSV 2024 scheme and the subsequent withdrawal of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the assessee granted the liberty to file an application under Section 254(2) of the Act to recall the order if necessary.

MUNDAGANAMANE GROUP GRAMAGALA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,SIRSI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, SIRSI

ITA 221/PAN/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21Dismissed

Citing Supreme Court precedents and ITAT Standing Orders, the Tribunal held that the situs of the Assessing Officer is the decisive factor for determining appellate jurisdiction. Since the AO's location fell outside the Panaji Bench's jurisdiction, the appeal was deemed 'not-maintainable' and dismissed in limine, with liberty granted to the assessee to file it before the appropriate jurisdictional bench in Bangalore.

BABU GURUNATH KALAL,BELAGAVI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BELGAUM

ITA 236/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal, applying principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a further opportunity to present their case and cooperate in submitting necessary information.

SUVARNA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,SIRSI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, SIRSI

ITA 164/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedent and its own prior rulings, affirmed that the situs of the AO dictates the appellate forum's jurisdiction. Since the AO concerned is located in Sirsi, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Panaji Bench, the appeals were deemed not maintainable before this bench. The appeals were dismissed in limine with leave to file them before the appropriate ITAT Bench in Bengaluru.

SUVARNA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,SIRSI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, SIRSI

ITA 165/PAN/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedent and its own prior rulings, affirmed that the situs of the AO dictates the appellate forum's jurisdiction. Since the AO concerned is located in Sirsi, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Panaji Bench, the appeals were deemed not maintainable before this bench. The appeals were dismissed in limine with leave to file them before the appropriate ITAT Bench in Bengaluru.

SHRI RAMACHANDRA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA KUMTA,KUMTA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 KARWAR, KARWAR

ITA 266/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal, noting the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal and the assessee's claim of having a strong case on merits, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

SHRI RAMACHANDRA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA KUMTA,KUMTA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI

ITA 265/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal, noting the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal and the assessee's claim of having a strong case on merits, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

SHRI RAMACHANDRA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA KUMTA,KUMTA vs ASSESSING OFFICER NFAC, DELHI

ITA 264/PAN/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal, noting the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal and the assessee's claim of having a strong case on merits, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

LALJI PURSHOTTAM DABHOYYA,PANAJI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PANAJI

ITA 249/PAN/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2025AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal ruled that the NFAC erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the manual submissions and the condonation of delay petition. The case was remanded back to the NFAC with directions to consider the condonation of delay afresh and then adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing adequate opportunities.

SANJAY BHAVAKANA KALKHAMBAKAR PATIL,QUEPEM vs THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 2, PANAJI

ITA 76/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (cash book) filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. Given the importance of this evidence, the Tribunal restored the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity to present the additional information.

ACGL BBD EMPLOYEES COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BHUIMPAL HONDA SATTARI GOA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), PANAJ, PANAJI, GOA

ITA 212/PAN/2024[201718]Status: Disposed12 Feb 2025Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) applies only to claimant assessees that are co-operative banks as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which the assessee is not. It clarified that Section 80P(4) is a proviso meant to exclude co-operative banks functioning like commercial banks, and it does not jeopardize the claim of deduction for interest/dividend income received by a co-operative society from another co-operative society. The Tribunal concluded that the denial of deduction was untenable based on factual matrix and binding judicial precedents.

GANGAPPA DUNDAPPA AGASAR,BELAGAVI vs ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

ITA 208/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The tribunal set aside the penalty order, finding that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard, with notices providing less than seven days during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also noted the NFAC's failure to address substantive grounds regarding the applicability of Section 269SS or the existence of reasonable cause under Section 273B. The case was remanded to the Jurisdictional AO for de-novo consideration with adequate opportunities.

THE BARDEZ URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MAPUSA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), PANAJI, PANAJI, GOA

ITA 74/PAN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Feb 2025Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Following various judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

MR. PRALHAD L ARONDEKAR,CALANGUTE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PANAJI

ITA 114/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Feb 2025AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by overlooking the DVO report, which was submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings and showed a lower valuation than the stamp duty authority. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to consider the DVO report and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

M/S GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGRAWAL (HUF),MARGAO vs JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI

ITA 29/PAN/2021[1997-98]Status: Disposed11 Feb 2025AY 1997-98Dismissed

The assessee opted for the 'Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024' (VSVA Scheme) and submitted a letter requesting the withdrawal of the present appeal. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting leave to the assessee to revive the appeal if the issue remains unsettled under the VSVA Scheme.

SHRI KISHOR VASANT CHOUGULE,BELAGAVI vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICR, WARD - 1, NIPPANI

ITA 90/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Feb 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC provided only a 'paper opportunity' to the assessee, thereby denying a real and reasonable chance to present evidence. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back for a de-novo assessment, directing the Ld. NFAC to provide at least three effective hearing opportunities to the assessee.

SHREE LAXMI ROADLINES,BELGAUM vs PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBLI

ITA 93/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Feb 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that since the assessee had opted for the DTVSV 2024 and sought to withdraw the appeal, no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, while granting the assessee liberty to move an application under Section 254(2) of the Act to recall the order in accordance with law.

THE MERCANTILE CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELAGAVI vs ITO WARD 6 BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

ITA 97/PAN/2024[2017-2018]Status: Disposed6 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the assessee challenged the ex-parte order and the additions, and upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSI, SIRSI vs GAJANAN RAMA PALANKAR, SIRSI

ITA 91/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Feb 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, dismissed the Revenue's appeal as 'not-maintainable', citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied on its own Rules, Standing Orders, and a Supreme Court judgment, determining that the 'situs of the assessing officer' is the decisive factor. As the AO is located in Sirsi, which falls outside the Panaji Bench's territorial limits, the appeal should be entertained by the Bangalore Bench.

GURDEEP SINGH MATREJA,PAJIFOND, MARGAO, GOA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, MARGAO

ITA 84/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Feb 2025AY 2012-13Remanded

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing to substantiate their case.

VISHWANATH VENKATESH KAMATH,BELAGAVI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BELAGAVI

ITA 110/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Feb 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to conduct independent inquiries, ascertain the correctness of profit estimation, and violated principles of natural justice and Rule 46A of IT-Rules by not providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Although the assessee failed to explain the SBN deposits, the NFAC also did not provide adequate opportunity to furnish supporting evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee gets an effective opportunity.

PARKKOT MARITIMA AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

ITA 169/PAN/2023[2008-09]Status: Disposed4 Feb 2025AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee's inability to reconcile the discrepancy was a curable issue attributable to third-party non-cooperation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the specific issue concerning the reconciliation of income/figures and corresponding TDS credit as per Form 26AS back to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for de-novo adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity.

MURGAON EDUCATION SOCIETY EMPLOYEES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,MORMUGAO vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 98/PAN/2024[2022-23]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2025AY 2022-23Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. It granted the assessee leave to revive the appeal in accordance with the law if the dispute remains unsettled under the opted VSVA scheme for any reason.

SHOBHANA YESHWANT LAAD,CURCHOREM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, MARGAO

ITA 154/PAN/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2025AY 2010-11Withdrawn

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's decision to resolve the matter via the DTVSV Scheme and the withdrawal application, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to apply u/Section 254(2) of the Act to recall the order if required.