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.

carried forward loss of Rs.60,473/-. During the year under assessment, Ld. AO noted that assessee has received dividend income of Rs.42,77,266/- which is claimed as exempt u/s. 10(34) of the Act and against which assessee has not disallowed any expenditure u/s. 14A of the Act. Before the AO, the assessee submitted that its investment activities yielded

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

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, statement of facts and the submissions

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

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

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 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI vs. M/S MILROC GOOD EARTH PROPERTY AND DEVELOPERS LLP, PANAJI

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee in CO No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 26/Pan/2018 ""या"ेपसं./Co.No.06/Pan/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.26/Pan/2018) "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Milroc Good Earth Property & Developers Llp, 501, 5Th Floor Milroc Lar Menezes, S.V. Road, Panaji-Goa - 403001 Pan : Aaacg7222M ……""यथ" / Respondent

carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset of hearing of the appeal the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’), submitted, that the CIT(Appeals) had gravely erred in vacating the disallowance of assessee’s claim for deduction of interest paid on bank OD of Rs.1,61,56,414/-. It was submitted

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