ITAT Panaji Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal addressed two primary issues. Firstly, regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Tribunal noted that the initial assessment was completed on December 29, 2009, and subsequent reopening occurred due to survey operations on September 22, 2011, with a notice under Section 148 issued on March 28, 2014. The Tribunal found that the notice was issued within six years from the end of AY 2007-08 and upheld the CIT(A)'s finding on the validity of reassessment, dismissing this ground of appeal. Secondly, concerning the addition under Section 69A, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the assessee's submissions and evidence filed during the appellate proceedings. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate its case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and remitted it back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh, with a direction to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity of hearing and to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal on this issue were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the set-off of carry forward losses pertaining to AY 2007-08 was justified as it exceeded the permissible period of eight assessment years. However, the claim for deduction of interest income on enhanced compensation under Section 57(iv) was allowed, relying on a judicial precedent.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidences, and did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following judicial precedents from the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts, held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Assessing Officer was directed to allow this deduction.

The ITAT Panaji Bench dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing that the situs of the AO (Mumbai) falls outside its territorial jurisdiction. It granted leave to the assessee to file the appeal before the appropriate ITAT bench in Mumbai.

The Tribunal held that Section 80AC was not applicable for A.Y. 2015-16 for claiming deduction under Section 80P, as its provisions were extended to cooperative societies for Section 80P from A.Y. 2018-19 onwards. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction even if the return was filed late.

The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) failed to provide reasonable opportunities to the assessee for hearing and submitting evidence, violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The NFAC's ex-parte orders were found to be irregular.

The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) failed to provide reasonable opportunities to the assessee for hearing and submitting evidence, violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The NFAC's ex-parte orders were found to be irregular.

The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) failed to provide reasonable opportunities to the assessee for hearing and submitting evidence, violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The NFAC's ex-parte orders were found to be irregular.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from cooperative banks. For interest income from scheduled banks, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was sustainable. While stamp duty for mining lease renewal was correctly treated as capital in nature, registration fees were held to be revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also addressed the consequential impact on business losses and depreciation.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case back to the CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation of delay application and adjudicate the appeal on merits. The tribunal emphasized providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, considering principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with cooperative banks and cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). For interest income from scheduled banks, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were premature and bad in law because the first appellate authority confirmed the penalty without first adjudicating the quantum appeal. The determination of under-reporting of income must precede the levy of penalty. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside and remanded to the Ld. NFAC for fresh adjudication after the disposal of the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the applications was condoned as the CIT(E) had proceeded to decide on merits. It further held that Taekwondo training, being a notified sport, falls under 'education' or 'advancement of general public utility' as per Section 2(15), and charging nominal fees does not disqualify the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to confront the assessees with the specific negative observations or dissatisfactions before rejecting their applications, thus denying them a real and effective opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide at least three effective opportunities to each assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order, granting the assessee another opportunity to file the application with the correct section code. It directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application in accordance with the law, emphasizing principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to confront the assessees with the specific negative observations or dissatisfactions before rejecting their applications, thereby denying them a real and effective opportunity to be heard. Citing principles of natural justice and statutory requirements, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with directions to provide at least three effective opportunities to each assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue of dealings with nominal and associate members to the Assessing Officer for verification. It also restored the issue of interest income from scheduled banks to the Assessing Officer for adjudication, while directing the allowance of deduction for interest income on deposits with cooperative banks.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the applications was condoned as the CIT(E) had proceeded to decide on merits. It further held that Taekwondo training, being a notified sport, falls under 'education' or 'advancement of general public utility' as per Section 2(15), and charging nominal fees does not disqualify the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to confront the assessees with the specific negative observations or dissatisfactions before rejecting their applications, thus denying them a real and effective opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide at least three effective opportunities to each assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to confront the assessees with the specific negative observations or dissatisfactions before rejecting their applications, thereby denying them a real and effective opportunity to be heard. Citing principles of natural justice and statutory requirements, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide at least three effective opportunities to each assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to confront the assessees with the specific negative observations or dissatisfactions before rejecting their applications, thus denying them a real and effective opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide at least three effective opportunities to each assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Ld. DR had no objections. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.