Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

22 results for “TDS”+ Section 30clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,971 Delhi2,896 Bangalore1,406 Chennai972 Kolkata712 Ahmedabad531 Hyderabad516 Pune414 Jaipur331 Indore306 Cochin242 Chandigarh235 Karnataka221 Patna198 Raipur197 Surat137 Visakhapatnam125 Lucknow105 Nagpur100 Cuttack97 Rajkot96 Amritsar66 Ranchi52 Jodhpur48 Dehradun47 Guwahati42 Agra36 Telangana24 Panaji22 Allahabad18 Jabalpur17 SC17 Varanasi11 Kerala9 Calcutta7 Punjab & Haryana2 Orissa2 Uttarakhand2 Rajasthan2

Key Topics

Section 271C25 Addition to Income18 TDS17 Section 25014 Deduction12 Section 133A11 Section 194C11 Section 201(1)9 Section 194A9 Section 143(3)

SHRI NITIN A SHIRGURKAR,BELGAVI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 77/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194A(3)(iv)Section 263Section 40

TDS is liable to be disallowed @30% u/s 40(a)(ia) ignoring the @30% u/s 40(a)(ia) ignoring the provisions of section

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

8

Section 143(1)8

Survey u/s 133A8

ITA 39/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

30,000/- or the aggregate annual payment to the individual / single contractor exceeded the ceiling of ₹75,000/-. From statement recorded, the Ld. ITO-TDS observed that, the assessee company engaged these harvesting contractors and transport contractors on its own account and not at the bequest of supplying farmers, furthermore the appellant was engaging them without reference to any farm

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

ITA 38/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

30,000/- or the aggregate annual payment to the individual / single contractor exceeded the ceiling of ₹75,000/-. From statement recorded, the Ld. ITO-TDS observed that, the assessee company engaged these harvesting contractors and transport contractors on its own account and not at the bequest of supplying farmers, furthermore the appellant was engaging them without reference to any farm

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

ITA 35/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

30,000/- or the aggregate annual payment to the individual / single contractor exceeded the ceiling of ₹75,000/-. From statement recorded, the Ld. ITO-TDS observed that, the assessee company engaged these harvesting contractors and transport contractors on its own account and not at the bequest of supplying farmers, furthermore the appellant was engaging them without reference to any farm

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

ITA 37/PAN/2019[2013/14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

30,000/- or the aggregate annual payment to the individual / single contractor exceeded the ceiling of ₹75,000/-. From statement recorded, the Ld. ITO-TDS observed that, the assessee company engaged these harvesting contractors and transport contractors on its own account and not at the bequest of supplying farmers, furthermore the appellant was engaging them without reference to any farm

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

ITA 36/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

30,000/- or the aggregate annual payment to the individual / single contractor exceeded the ceiling of ₹75,000/-. From statement recorded, the Ld. ITO-TDS observed that, the assessee company engaged these harvesting contractors and transport contractors on its own account and not at the bequest of supplying farmers, furthermore the appellant was engaging them without reference to any farm

MOODABIDRE TOWN MUNICIPALITY,MOODUBIDIRE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS), MANGALORE

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 002/Pan/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri B. Y. Chavan

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

section 200A prior to and after amendment and also the case laws relied on by the AR. The appellant filed the TDS statement on 30.12.2016 (after 01.06.2015). In view of the above discussion and binding decisions, I hereby direct the AO to quantify the amount of late fees to be paid us. 234E for the delay from

SMT VANDANA SAMEER MAJALI,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 14/PAN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.14/Pan/2022 (A.Y. 2011-12 ) Smt Vandana Sameer Majali, Vs Ito-Ward-1(2), H.No.189/B1/A, Civil Hospital Road, . Shukrawar Peth, Belagavi-590001. Tilakwadi, Karnataka. Belagavi-590006, . Karnataka. . Pan .No. Apupm1202K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

30,23,140/- and the return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information and after recording of reasons has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and has issued the notice u/sec148 of the Act on 27.03.2018 and in compliance the assesse has filed the return

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 170/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

TDS compliances etc., and (e) collating of information of thirteen year old records from the merged assessee branch. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT ITA No. 169 to 171/PAN/2025 7. To inspire the bench that, length of delay should not be sole attribute in deciding as to whether same should

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 171/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

TDS compliances etc., and (e) collating of information of thirteen year old records from the merged assessee branch. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT ITA No. 169 to 171/PAN/2025 7. To inspire the bench that, length of delay should not be sole attribute in deciding as to whether same should

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 169/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

TDS compliances etc., and (e) collating of information of thirteen year old records from the merged assessee branch. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT ITA No. 169 to 171/PAN/2025 7. To inspire the bench that, length of delay should not be sole attribute in deciding as to whether same should

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 116/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

TDS is deducted. This is an undisputed fact that in this case the Assessee has not deducted the tax.” 30. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the legal position and application of retrospective amendment w.e.f. 1.6.1976 in section

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

TDS is deducted. This is an undisputed fact that in this case the Assessee has not deducted the tax.” 30. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the legal position and application of retrospective amendment w.e.f. 1.6.1976 in section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 176/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that a witness will be first examined in chief, and then if the adverse party deems fit, cross-examined and if the party calling him so desires, be re- examined. Therefore, the corollary to the rule of fairness and justness is that statement of those witnesses referred to relied upon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 175/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that a witness will be first examined in chief, and then if the adverse party deems fit, cross-examined and if the party calling him so desires, be re- examined. Therefore, the corollary to the rule of fairness and justness is that statement of those witnesses referred to relied upon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 177/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that a witness will be first examined in chief, and then if the adverse party deems fit, cross-examined and if the party calling him so desires, be re- examined. Therefore, the corollary to the rule of fairness and justness is that statement of those witnesses referred to relied upon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 180/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that a witness will be first examined in chief, and then if the adverse party deems fit, cross-examined and if the party calling him so desires, be re- examined. Therefore, the corollary to the rule of fairness and justness is that statement of those witnesses referred to relied upon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 179/PAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that a witness will be first examined in chief, and then if the adverse party deems fit, cross-examined and if the party calling him so desires, be re- examined. Therefore, the corollary to the rule of fairness and justness is that statement of those witnesses referred to relied upon

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

TDS was deducted on the contractor payments and is not disputed by the revenue. Hence considering the facts, submissions and judicial decisions relied, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this disputed issue and direct the assessing officer to delete the disallowance of community development and village welfare 7 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye and Bros. expenses and this

MRS VINI P. KENI,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 112/PAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 112/Pan/2022 (A.Y. 2014-15 ) Vini Prasad Keni, Vs Ito-Ward-1(3), Keni Building, Aayakar Bhavan, . Dr.Dada Vaidhya Road, Panaji-403001, Panjim-403001, Goa. Goa. . Pan .No. Adppk9767N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.E.Robinson.Ar Revenue By Sri Narender Reddy.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/ Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised

Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

30-11-2014 disclosing a total income of Rs.8,31,650/-. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and the notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire are issued. In compliance, the Ld.AR of the assesse appeared from time to time and submitted the information and details. The Assessing Officer