SONALI MAHENDRA NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs. ASST. UNIT, NFAC, I. T. DEPARTMENT, DELHI

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

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

reopened for re- assessing difference of capital gain arising out of deviation in the value of sale consideration recorded/shown vis-à-vis stamp

SHRI NITIN A SHIRGURKAR,BELGAVI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

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

Gain on sale of land or building 3.3 The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Pramod Vaidhy The ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Pramod Vaidhya, further drew our , further drew our attention to the order of the ld. Pr. CIT, wherein at page 5 para 4, the ld. Pr. CIT has attention to the order

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

reopened for re-assessing difference of capital gain arising out of deviation in sale consideration recorded/shown vis-à-vis stamp

M/S SANKAMTAL HOTEL PRIVATE LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 2 (1), BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Sankamtal Hotel Acit, Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd. Belagavi S. Parthasarathi, Advocate, 3/1, Pranava Vs. Complex, 5Th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore- 560 003. Pan: Aadcs 5106 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha R., Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), -Belagavi In Ita No.51/Bgm/2016-17 Dated 25.02.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Belagavi U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.03.2016 For A.Y. 2008-09. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit Are Placed On Record. From The Affidavit, We Note That The Assessee Was Out Of Station When The Appeal Memo Was Sent To Him By The Counsel For Its Signature & Therefore A Short Delay Of 5 Days Occurred. Considering The Petition & In The Interest Of Justice & Fair Play, We Find It Proper To Admit The Appeal & Proceed To Adjudicate Thereon.

reopened by invoking the 3 M/s Sankamtal Hotel Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2008-09 provision of Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act, for which the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2015. In response to the said notice, return was filed on 04.06.2015 reporting the same total income as was reported originally. In the course

RANJANA NAIK MIRSANGKAR,BEGIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 145/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ranjana Naik Mirsangkar H.No. 614, Walkeshwar Wada, Betim, Bardez, North Goa, Goa Pan : Aldpn9981B . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064227170(1) Dt. 19/04/2024 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. 16/03/2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2015-16 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

assessment year 2015-16 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4 Ranjana Naik Mirsangkar Vs ITO ITA Nos.145/PAN/2024 AY: 2015-16 2. Tersely stated facts of the case are that; the assessee is an individual and was identified as non-filer. Upon the receipt of information after recording reasons & obtaining prior approval from the competent authority the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO vs. SHRI ROHIT RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

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

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, MARGAO vs. SMT RAJANI RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIUKAAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

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

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO vs. SHRI ROHIT RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

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

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, MARGAO vs. SHRI RAJ SHANU PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

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

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO vs. SHRI ROHAN RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

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

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO vs. SHRI SHANU PAI PANANDIKAR (HUF), MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

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

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO vs. SMT KUNDA SHANU PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

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

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO vs. SHRI ROHAN RAMCHANDRA PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

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

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO vs. SHRI SHANU PAI PANANDIKAR (HUF), MARGAO

Accordingly. The grounds accordingly stands partly allowed

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

reopening sought vide letter dt. 12/04/2017 by the assessee was supplied and the objections raised thereagainst vide letter dt. 22/11/2017 was also disposed off by the Ld. AO vide separate order dt. 29/11/2017. The case of the assessee was then taken up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein an undisclosed amount