PRIYANKA AGARWAL,DONA PAULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Priyanka Agarwal Ito, Ward-1(4), Panaji, Goa House No. 28-Y, Machado Residential Cove, Vs. Vainguinim Valley, Donapaula, Goa-403004. Pan: Bjkaps 3952 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Shrinivas Nayak, Ca Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji In Ita No.233/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 24.08.2018 Against The Order Passed By Ito, Ward-1(4), Panaji U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 27.12.2016 For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In The Present Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

Capital Gain as Short Term Capital Gain bringing it to tax under the Act. He also pointed out that all the documentary

SMT SUNANDA ANIL SALVE,NIPANI, BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

capital gain is taxable on 'transfer of a capital asset1. Precisely, this section prescribes that 'any profits or gains arising

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI vs. M/S JAY RAM ORE CARRIERS, VASCO

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.227/Pan/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vs. M/S. Jay Ram Ore Goa. Carriers, 2Nd Floor, Sunflower Appts, Opp. St. Andrew Church, Vasco, Goa. Pan : Aaffj0752R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Assessee By : Shri R. D. Onkar Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Respondent-Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Operation Of Barge Of Contract. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed By The Appellant Firm On 29.07.2014 Declaring Total Income

capital gains arising on sale of barge, which were assessed to tax under the head “capital gains”. However, the ld. CIT(A) placing

UMICORE AUTOCAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( ORIGINAL APPELLANT UMICORE ANANDEYA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),ZUARINAGAR, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.118 & 119/Pan/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gain. The Authority held that no capital gain accrued or arose at the time of conversion of partnership firm

UMICORE AUTOCAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( ORIGINAL APPELLANT UMICORE ANANDEYA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),ZUARINAGAR, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.118 & 119/Pan/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gain. The Authority held that no capital gain accrued or arose at the time of conversion of partnership firm

APPAYYA KAVEERAPPA KOTTARSHETTY,BELGAUM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, BELAGAVI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)

capital gains in the Appayya Karveerappa Kottarshetty. A.Y.2017-18 and the A.O has taxed the long term capital gains claimed in the earlier

VIJESH VITHAL TALAULICAR,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 230/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Vijesh Vithal Talaulicar Shri Ramnath Sadan, Dr. Dada Vaidya Road, Panaji, Goa Pan : Aaxpt9647D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji. ……""यथ" / Respondent

capital gains tax is payable by an assessee where it was not possible to compute the capital gains u/s 48 of the Act.. It is held

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

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)

capital gains and such expenditure incurred for acquiring such lease hold right including expenditure towards renewal of mining lease is a capital

EMCO GOA PRIVATE LIMITED,MARGAO vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gd Padmahshaliemco Goa Pvt Ltd, Vs. Adit, Cpc, Prasad Rawanfond, Bengaluru-560500. Aquea, Baixo,Navelim, Kar Margoa-403707, Goa. Nataka. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No.Aaace3064F Appellant .. Respondent

capital gains by the assessee. Whereas the income has been correctly offered by the assessee, under the head “Short Term

SANJAY ATCHUT POY RAITURCAR,MARGAO vs. ITO, WARD - 4 , MARGAO

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon. & (Through Virtual Hearing)

capital gain.” 2. The relevant facts are that assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, rent and other sources

PRATIBHA P KULKARNI REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR CHIDAMBAR KULKARNI,BELAGAVI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.212/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Pratibha P Kulkarni Vs Dcit-Central Circle, Represented By Legal Heir Saraf Colony, . Chidambar Kulkarni, Khanaput, Plot.No.593, Block-1, Tilakwari, Sector.No.5, Shrinagar, Belagavi--590001, Belagavi-590016, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Adzpk4755G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

capital gains and recomputed the long term capital gains and after allowing the deduction under section 54EC of the Act has determined

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

capital gains under the provisions of the Act when transferred. Once the nature & character of transaction is established as capital

COMMUNIDADE OF CHICALIM,CHICALIM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.207/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) Comunidade Of Chicalim, Vs Acit Circle 2(1), Ground Floor, St Xavier Aaykar Bhavan, . Church Building, Edc, Patto, Chicalim-403802, Panjim South Goa,Goa. Goa-403001. Pan .No. Aaaabc0196P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

capital gains of Rs.1,65,74,350/-. The A.O find that the assessee could not carried forward the loss for eight

MAHENDRA PURUSHOTTAM NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

Accordingly. The ground thus stands allowed

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

capital gain arising out of deviation in the value of sale consideration recorded/shown vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation adopted

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

capital gains as per section 45(4) of the Act is not maintainable. The ld. DR drew our attention to the order

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ahiliabai Sardessai Assistant Commissioner Of 301, Lotus Court, M. G. Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Road, St. Inwz Junction, Panaji. Panaji, Goa-403001. (Pan: Aagfa9044G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri N. J. Prabhudesai, Ar Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1 Vide Ita No. Cit(A), Pnj-1/10391/2017-18 Dated 14.09.2018 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit, Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa Dated 13.12.2017. 2. Shri N. J. Prabhudesai, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

capital gains of Rs.66,86,593/- claimed exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act; (iii) short term capital gains (Net) Rs.33

DEEPAK SATAGOUDA PATIL,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELGAUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee sands partly allowed for statistical purposes

capital gains of Rs.71,32,618/- against which deduction u/s 54 on account of construction of new house of Rs.67

SONALI MAHENDRA NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

capital gain arising out of deviation in sale consideration recorded/shown vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation adopted in relation sale