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 - whether short term or long term. Resultantly, the depreciation allowed has to be withdrawn. In view of this, Ground No.1 of the assesses’ appeal against the disallowance

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 - whether short term or long term. Resultantly, the depreciation allowed has to be withdrawn. In view of this, Ground No.1 of the assesses’ appeal against the disallowance

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 A.O find that the stamp duty paid for the renewal of mining lease is towards the execution of the lease deed is a capital expenditure being the acquisition of capital asset u/sec2

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)

disallowance of interest claimed against the capital gains amounting to Rs.20,55,704/- in the hands of the communion and 50% thereof

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-

disallowance of Renewal Charges of Mining Lease of Rs16,00,00,000/- He failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer was wrong in holding the expenditure as Capital Expenditure. He ignored the fact that the appellant was in mining business since past several years in the same mine, hence charges for renewal of mining lease was entirely a revenue

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

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 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. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT invoked the provisions of section 263 and by order dt. 19/04/2024 set-aside the former order for fresh assessment for Ld. AO’s failure to conduct inquiry. ITAT-Panaji Page

VEERENDRA BASAVARAJ KOUJALAGI,BELAGAVI vs. CIRCLE 1 BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.289/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2010-11) Veerendra Basavarajkoujalagi Vs Ito-Circle 1, Shri. Laxmi Complex,1St Cross Chessonroad, . Apmc Road,Sadashivnagar, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Belagavi-590001, Belagavi-590001. Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No. Agrpk3086D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

disallowance u/sec43B of the Act of Rs.27,483/-(iii) operation and maintenance charges of wind mill of Rs.5,97,139/- treated as capital expenditure (iv) income under profit and gains

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

disallowance of 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

VGM EXPORT,VASCO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 114/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vgm Export Suvarn Bandekar Building, Swatantra Path, Vasco, Goa Pan : Aaafv6197P . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr P B Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2025

disallowing Rs 1,14,11,643/- towards loss on balances maintained in EEFC account considering the same as notional and also capital in nature. The ld. AO and the Hon. CIT(A) have incorrectly applied the rationale on the Hon. Delhi HC in the matter of Philips Petroleum International Corp. in the current case.’ 4. During the course of hearing

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance. We make it clear first of all that the question as to whether such 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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance. We make it clear first of all that the question as to whether such 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

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

gain of business ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 20 M/s Sova Vs PCIT ITA No. 024/PAN/2024 AY: 2018-19 profession [‘PGBP’] were disallowed and (ii) receipt/credit representing (a) reimbursement of extraction cost incurred ₹4,42,48,443/-, (b) credit balances written off ₹14,03,127/-, (c) interest on bank deposits ₹16,39,202/- & (d) interest on tax-refund

SHRI BRAHMANATH CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,NIPPANI vs. ITO 1 NIPPANI, NIPPANI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.66/Pan/2026 (A.Y. 2013-14 ) Shri Brahmanath Credit Vs I.T.O-Ward-1, Souhard Sahakari Sangh Nemchand Building, . Niyamat, 747,Ashoknagar, 185/C, Chikodi Road, Nippani-591237, Nippani, Karnataka. Belagavi-591237, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaas1063Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.U.G.Ammangi.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/Cit(A) U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Deduction Of Interest Income From Cooperative Society, Cooperative Banks & Nationalized Banks U/Sec80P(2)(D) Of The Act. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Is Engaged In Activities Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2013-14 On 2 Ita. No..66/Pan/2026 Shri Brahmanath Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit. 30.09.2013 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.Nil After Claiming Deduction Of Rs.78,06,780/- U/Sec 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. Subsequently The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Order U/Sec143(3) Of The Act Was Passed Disallowing The Claim U/Sec80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act Of Rs.78,06,780/- & Disallowance U/Sec40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Of Rs.76,274/- & Assessed The Total Income Of Rs.78,83,054/- Vide Order Dated21.07.2021.Aggrived By The Order, On Appeal To The Cit(A), The Appeal Was Partly Allowed & The Assessee Has Preferred Second Appeal Before The Honble Tribunal & Vide By Order

disallow the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) had rendered the assessment order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we herein not finding favor with the view taken

SHREE MAHILA CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. ITO WARD 1 BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.116/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Shree Mahila Credit Souhard Vs Ito-Ward-2, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Shop.No.3, Maruti Complex, Civil Hospital Road 2 Nd Railway Gate, Tilakwadi, Belagavi-590001. Belgaum-500006, Karnataka. Karnataka. . Pan .No. Aabas9244A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Pramod Y Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Nfac/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Partially Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/Sec80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act Made By The Assessing Officer & Without Prejudice Alternate Relief U/Sec80P(2)(D) Of The Act & Sustaining Denial Of Deduction Of Interest On Income Tax Refund Under Section 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act.

disallow the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) had rendered the assessment order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we herein not finding favor with the view taken

THE CAMP MULTIPURPOSE PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PERNEM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), PANAJI, GOA

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

disallow the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) had rendered the assessment order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we herein not finding favor with the view taken

SHRI MALLIKARJUN URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. ITO WARD 1 BELGAUM, BELGAUM

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

disallow the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) had rendered the assessment order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we herein not finding favor with the view taken

BARDC BANK,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.296 & 297/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Ito-Ward-1, Vs Pld Bank, Main Road, Santerikrupa, . Uttara Kannada, Kaigaroad, Bhatkal S.O. Habbuwada, Karnataka-581320. Karwar-581306, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

disallow the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) had rendered the assessment order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we herein not finding favor with the view taken

BARDC BANK,BHATKAL vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.296 & 297/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Ito-Ward-1, Vs Pld Bank, Main Road, Santerikrupa, . Uttara Kannada, Kaigaroad, Bhatkal S.O. Habbuwada, Karnataka-581320. Karwar-581306, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

disallow the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) had rendered the assessment order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we herein not finding favor with the view taken