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)

Loss A/c prepared for the respective years which were also subjected to audit under both the provisions of Companies Act, 1956/2013 and u/s 44AB of the Act as well. Out of these three payments, later sequential two payments pertaining to; (a) expenses/charges etc., paid for registration of second mining-lease renewal, & (b) periodic royalty payments etc., paid on the basis

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-

Loss A/c prepared for the respective years which were also subjected to audit under both the provisions of Companies Act, 1956/2013 and u/s 44AB of the Act as well. Out of these three payments, later sequential two payments pertaining to; (a) expenses/charges etc., paid for registration of second mining-lease renewal, & (b) periodic royalty payments etc., paid on the basis

M/S SOVA,PANAJI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2018-19 M/S Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aacfs8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent

carried forward [‘C/f’] of total losses of ₹44,90,40,717/- of which current year business losses including unabsorbed depreciation of ₹3,21,300/- were ₹27,38,53,538/-. The return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dt. 22/09/2019 and the consequential assessment

JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs. M/S WALLACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD, PANAJI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gains or losses, involving foreign exchange already stand settled in hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd., [2009] 312 ITR 254 (SC). This is indeed coupled with the fact that the relevant Accounting standard AS-11 has also issued necessary clarification that such differences ought to be recognized as income or expenditure

JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs. M/S WALLACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD, PANAJI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gains or losses, involving foreign exchange already stand settled in hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd., [2009] 312 ITR 254 (SC). This is indeed coupled with the fact that the relevant Accounting standard AS-11 has also issued necessary clarification that such differences ought to be recognized as income or expenditure

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI., SELECT CITY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

carrying on business and to maintain assets in their existing condition. It doesn't increase the profit earning capacity but merely maintains it at existing level. It is used in the sense of immediate or short term benefit. Several case laws have been cited by the assessee in support of its contention that the assessee is paying royalty for right

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PATTO PLAZA vs. ESTEEM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT

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

capital expenditure of ₹1,94,57,703/- relating to technical know-how. Aggrieved by the first addition, the assessee filed an appeal which the Ld. NFAC allowed by reversing the alleged addition. Aggrieved thereby the Revenue came in this second appeal seeking to overturn former deletion. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 20 DCIT Vs Esteem Industries Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.253/PAN/2024