ITAT Panaji Judgments — April 2026

SONAL SUNIL JOLAPURE,DAVORLIM, SALCETE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, MARGAO

ITA 174/PAN/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed2 Apr 2026AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of explaining the source of deposits and that the assessee was identifiable by both names (Jain and Jolapure) for whom the notice was issued and in whose name deposits were made. The validity of reassessment proceedings and the additions were upheld.

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

ITA 344/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed2 Apr 2026AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the issue of management fees to the DRP for fresh adjudication, citing a similar pending issue for an earlier assessment year. The additional ground regarding education cess was withdrawn and dismissed.

KAMAT CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PANAJI vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

ITA 140/PAN/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed2 Apr 2026AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty without proper independent findings and overlooking the material evidence filed by the assessee. For AY 2011-12, it was held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not applicable as the assessment year did not fall within the 'specified previous year' definition. Consequently, the penalty was set aside.

KAMAT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

ITA 137/PAN/2023[2007-08]Status: Disposed2 Apr 2026AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty without proper independent findings and overlooking the material evidence filed by the assessee. For AY 2011-12, it was held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not applicable as the assessment year did not fall within the 'specified previous year' definition. Consequently, the penalty was set aside.

KAMAT CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PANAJI vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

ITA 139/PAN/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed2 Apr 2026AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty without proper independent findings and overlooking the material evidence filed by the assessee. For AY 2011-12, it was held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not applicable as the assessment year did not fall within the 'specified previous year' definition. Consequently, the penalty was set aside.

KAMAT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI

ITA 138/PAN/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed2 Apr 2026AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty without proper independent findings and overlooking the material evidence filed by the assessee. For AY 2011-12, it was held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not applicable as the assessment year did not fall within the 'specified previous year' definition. Consequently, the penalty was set aside.

M/S SADANAND BHAVAN,GOKAK vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

ITA 49/PAN/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Apr 2026AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition related to renovation and interior decoration of the shop was beyond the scope of the Pr. CIT's directions and should be deleted. The Tribunal also found that the excess stock represented income generated from business activities and directed its deletion from additions. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's explanations regarding excess cash and dismissed that ground of appeal.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs SHRI IDREES MOHAMMED, KALABURAGI

ITA 149/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Apr 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of the assessee's books was justified due to non-production of records. However, the estimation of business profit at 10% by the AO was found to be ad-hoc and without proper rationale. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the net profit margin to 8% of the reported turnover.