ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Capital Gains of Rs.191,11,60,784/- on account of purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. as business income. (b) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition based on his erroneous observations without confronting the appellant with such observations. The addition in the sum of Rs.191,11,60,784/- confirmed

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 without considering the exemption u/sec54F of the Act. On further appeal, the CIT(A) has granted exemption u/sec54F

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

gain was charged to tax in the A.Y. 2006-07. The AO opined that, by acquisition of the entire share capital of M/s. Anandeya Zinc Oxides Pvt. Ltd. by M/s.Umicore Finance Luxembourg, it violated the mandate of proviso to clause (d) of section 47 (xiii) of the Act and hence, exemption

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

gain was charged to tax in the A.Y. 2006-07. The AO opined that, by acquisition of the entire share capital of M/s. Anandeya Zinc Oxides Pvt. Ltd. by M/s.Umicore Finance Luxembourg, it violated the mandate of proviso to clause (d) of section 47 (xiii) of the Act and hence, exemption

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

gain”, as contemplated in sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the Act, we find that the same reads as under (relevant extract):- “(14) [“Capital asset” means- (a) Property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession; (b) any securities held by a Foreign Institutional Investor which has invested in such securities

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 gains (LTCG) on the sale of land after claiming exemption u/sec. 54F, 54F(4) and interest paid to M/s. Fabrica

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

CHERYL SAVIA INDIRA LOBO,CALANGUTE vs. ACIT, C-1(1), PANAJI, PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 275/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Cheryl Savia Indira Lobo H.No. E-100, Pobha Vado, Calangute, Bardez, North Goa, Goa Pan : Acbpl9307J . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Vinod Totekar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064290058(1) Dt. 23/04/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 27/12/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Asstt. Commission Of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

capital gain. The resultant exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54E of the Act also turn down tenaciously. ITAT-Panaji

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.4,31,618/- was offered to tax. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant could not substantiate the cost of improvement to the extent of Rs.10,52,000/- but, could substantiate a sum of Rs.7,54,000/-. In the circumstances, the 3 Assessing Officer computed the indexed cost of Rs.11,90,925/- against Rs.16

SHRI FREMIOTH SAVIO MENEZES,CARANZALEM, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,52,36,235/- on transfer of his immovable property. The assessee claimed deduction u/s. 54EC of Rs.45,00,000/- by showing an investment of the 2 ITA No.343/Pan./2017 said amount in REC bonds. The assessee had transferred his immovable property being plot of land by executing an agreement to sell

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

SHRI MALLIKARJUN URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), , BELAGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

exemption u/s 80P of the Act. Section 80P(4) is not affected in this particular deduction. The Revenue is wrongly interpreted the section 80P(4) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd, supra. 6. The Ld. DR vehemently argued and relied that the assessee invested in Cooperative Bank

SHRI MAHALAXMI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,NANDAGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

exemption u/s 80P of the Act. Section 80P(4) is not affected in this particular deduction. The Revenue is wrongly interpreted the section 80P(4) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd, supra. 6. The Ld. DR vehemently argued and relied that the assessee invested in Cooperative Bank

SHRI ADINATH PATTIN SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,HEBBAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

exemption u/s 80P of the Act. Section 80P(4) is not affected in this particular deduction. The Revenue is wrongly interpreted the section 80P(4) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd, supra. 6. The Ld. DR vehemently argued and relied that the assessee invested in Cooperative Bank

MADABHAVI L. S. M. P. SOCIETY LTD,MADABHAVI vs. ITO, WARD - 1, NIPANI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

exemption u/s 80P of the Act. Section 80P(4) is not affected in this particular deduction. The Revenue is wrongly interpreted the section 80P(4) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd, supra. 6. The Ld. DR vehemently argued and relied that the assessee invested in Cooperative Bank

THE NUTAN MAHILA URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,MUNAVALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1), BELAGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

exemption u/s 80P of the Act. Section 80P(4) is not affected in this particular deduction. The Revenue is wrongly interpreted the section 80P(4) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd, supra. 6. The Ld. DR vehemently argued and relied that the assessee invested in Cooperative Bank

M/S PRATHMIK KRUSHI SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMIT,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELGAUM

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

exemption u/s 80P of the Act. Section 80P(4) is not affected in this particular deduction. The Revenue is wrongly interpreted the section 80P(4) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd, supra. 6. The Ld. DR vehemently argued and relied that the assessee invested in Cooperative Bank

THE BELGAUM MANUFACTURERS CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LTD,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

exemption u/s 80P of the Act. Section 80P(4) is not affected in this particular deduction. The Revenue is wrongly interpreted the section 80P(4) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd, supra. 6. The Ld. DR vehemently argued and relied that the assessee invested in Cooperative Bank