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:

addition of Rs. 43,48,421/- made by the AO. vi. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete or withdraw any or all the grounds of appeal.” 3. The only issue involved is this appeal by the assessee before us is in respect of treatment of Long Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee on sale of shares

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 exemption claimed in the earlier year as additional income and assessed the total income of Rs.1,90,01,808/- and passed

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

income as disclosed in the Profits & Loss Account alone has to be considered, accordingly, directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of excess partners’ remuneration of Rs.1,38,95,958/-. As regards to the set-off of the brought forward business loses against the capital gains

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

addition of profit and restricting the carry forward of loss to Rs.55,02,853/- as against Rs.72,19,222/- claimed by the assessee and the order u/sec 143(1) of the Act was passed on 22.10.2020. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal

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

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI (AT e-Court, PUNE) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.118 & 119/PAN/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Umicore Autocat India Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-2, (Original appellant Umicore Anandeya Margao India Private Limited), ACIT, Circle

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

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI (AT e-Court, PUNE) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.118 & 119/PAN/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Umicore Autocat India Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-2, (Original appellant Umicore Anandeya Margao India Private Limited), ACIT, Circle

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 assessment years immediately succeeding the A.Y.2007-08, and such loss can be set off till A.Y.2015-16. 3. The A.O dealt on the provisions of section 74 of the Act and the code of comunidades, and considered the details of carried

RAJASHREE ANNASAHEB PATIL,BELGAUM, KARNATAKA vs. KAR-W-(521)(1), BELAGAVI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.486/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2018-19) Rajashree Annasaheb Patil, I T O, Vs Near Murasidda Temple, National E Assessment . Gandhi Galli Bhiradi, Centre, Raybag,Belgaum-591217, Delhi Karnataka. Pan No. Ejfpp4199R (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

addition of short term capital gain of Rs.65,00,000/- and assessed the total income of Rs.65,00,000/- and passed

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)

income of Rs.1,45,58,644/-. The AO made a single addition towards disallowance of interest claimed against the capital gains

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)

gains and such expenditure incurred for acquiring such lease hold right including expenditure towards renewal of mining lease is a capital expenditure. The Ld.AR contentions are that the expenditure of payment of stamp duty and registrations charges are legal expenses in connection with the renewal of lease and is allowable as revenue expenditure. The Ld.AR highlighted the receipt of “sale

DINKAR KASHIMATH PATIL,MARCELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-W-1(3),PANAJI, PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.10/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Dinkar Kashimath Patil, Vs National Faceless H.No.322/3,Ganpatiwada, Assessment Centre, . Near Graceland,Khandola, Delhi. Marcela, Ponda-403107, . Goa. Pan/Gir No. Ajjpp9976E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

addition of short term capital gains and not condoning the delay in filling the appeal before the CIT(A). 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before 2 ITA. No.10/PAN/2025 Dinkar Kashimath Patil. the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the affidavit for condonation

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 of Rs,3,77,800/- and assessed the total income of Rs.6,78,066/-and passed the order u/sec153r.w.s144 of the Act dated 24.03.2022. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assesse has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the 3 ITA. No.212/PAN/2025 Pratibha P Kulkarani Represented by legal heir chidambar kukarni

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 of ₹2,93,33,256/- to tax as undisclosed income vide an assessment order dt. 29/09/2021 framed u/s 147 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 16 Mahendra Purushottam Naik Gaunekar Vs ITO ITA No.: 012/PAN/2024 AY: 2016-17 4. Aggrieved by aforestated assessment the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC on 20/10/2021, which came

M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (SALT) PVT. LTD,MORMUGAO vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 390/Pan/2017 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S Chowgule & Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd., Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa – 403803. Pan: Aabcc 5595 J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Ms Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull Am; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Panaji-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 09/10/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Tousled Out Of Order Of Assessment Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-2, Margoa [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 27/07/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 23

capital, the appellant claims that, no interest expenditure was indeed incurred for earning exempt dividend income stands tall and de fact remained uncontroverted by the Ld. DR, consequently the ITAT-Panaji Page 15 of 23 M/s Chowgule and Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd ITA No.: 390/PAN/2017, AY : 2012-2013, AABCC5595J disallowance made u/r 8D(2)(ii) remained baseless on records, hence

INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,DONA PAULA vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

gains of business or profession, therefore, now when advances/deposits received by the assessee would not fall within the realm of “………any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not”, therefore, the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act could not have been triggered for making an addition of the aforesaid amount as the income of the assessee company

ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., DONA PAULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

gains of business or profession, therefore, now when advances/deposits received by the assessee would not fall within the realm of “………any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not”, therefore, the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act could not have been triggered for making an addition of the aforesaid amount as the income of the assessee company

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-

gains under the provisions of the Act when transferred. Once the nature & character of transaction is established as capital acquisition, then; (a) the mode/nomenclature of payment in acquiring such capital asset, (b) the frequency of payment such as annual, term basis or onetime etc., and (c) the stage of discharge of payment towards viz; first instance/grant of licence

SHRI LALJI PURSHOTTAM DABHOYYA PATEL,ALTINHO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

additional income, but due to concealment detected during the course of survey operation u/s 133A, the assessee has declared the income of Rs.2,57,40,889/-. I find that neither in the assessment order nor in the penalty order the AO has brought out the nature of concealment by the appellant. 18. The appellant on the other hand has submitted