BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

19 results for “capital gains”+ Section 10(38)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,286Delhi2,619Bangalore1,056Chennai900Ahmedabad752Kolkata731Jaipur625Hyderabad409Pune322Chandigarh285Indore284Karnataka187Surat172Cochin165Raipur134Rajkot99Nagpur93Cuttack91Agra86Calcutta85Lucknow80Visakhapatnam77Guwahati56Amritsar55SC40Telangana36Ranchi31Dehradun27Panaji19Patna19Jodhpur18Allahabad13Jabalpur13Varanasi11Kerala10Rajasthan5Orissa4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 80P27Section 80P(4)27Disallowance17Section 80I16Section 143(3)13Deduction13Section 26311Section 14A9Section 250(6)9Section 80P(2)(d)

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

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

ITA 105/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, the investment made in shares of Sesa Goa Ltd., as is evident from the audited books of account is out of surplus money only and no borrowed funds were utilized. The assessee-company purchased 3,38,03,812 equity shares of M/s. Sesa

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

9
Exemption9
Condonation of Delay9

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

ITA 116/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, the investment made in shares of Sesa Goa Ltd., as is evident from the audited books of account is out of surplus money only and no borrowed funds were utilized. The assessee-company purchased 3,38,03,812 equity shares of M/s. Sesa

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI vs. M/S JAY RAM ORE CARRIERS, VASCO

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 227/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.227/Pan/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vs. M/S. Jay Ram Ore Goa. Carriers, 2Nd Floor, Sunflower Appts, Opp. St. Andrew Church, Vasco, Goa. Pan : Aaffj0752R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Assessee By : Shri R. D. Onkar Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Respondent-Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Operation Of Barge Of Contract. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed By The Appellant Firm On 29.07.2014 Declaring Total Income

For Appellant: Shri R. D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(3)Section 40

38,95,958/-. As regards to the set-off of the brought forward business loses against the capital gains arising on sale of barge, the ld. CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd., 57 ITR 306 (SC) held that the gains arising on sale

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

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

10. We have heard the rival party’s submission & arguments, subject to rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963 [‘ITAT-Rules’] perused the material placed on records and considered the facts of the case in the light of settled position of law which were primed to the respective parties for their rebuttal. ITAT-Panaji Page

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

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

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)

Section 3

10 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye and Bros. undertaken and includes the non-mineralised area required and approved for the activities falling under the definition of mine as referred to in clause (i); (aa) ‘Minerals’ means all minerals except mineral oils. (c) ‘Mining Lease; means a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operations, and includes a sub-lease granted

M/S. AHILIABAI SARDESSAI, ,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 450/PAN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

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.

For Appellant: Shri N. J. Prabhudesai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A

10(38) of the Act; (iii) short term capital gains (Net) Rs.33,45,807/- offered for taxation. 4.1. Assessee submitted that investment related decisions were taken by the partners of the firm only which were based on suggestion/analysis of broking agency who were paid by the Asset Management companies/Mutual Funds and no commission/service fees were borne by the assessee. Accordingly

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 205/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Shivshankar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 253Section 263Section 4

capital or revenue. The 'once for all' payment test is also inconclusive. What is relevant is the purpose of the outlay and its intended object and effect, considered in a commonsense way having regard to the business realities." (p. 379) 8 ITA.No.205/PAN./2019 In the case of this assessee, it is found that the claim of expenses under

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

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 24/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56

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

GOA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED.,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), , PANAJI

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 449/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

10 years with initial assessment year as AY 2007-08. The activity wise profit and loss account placed on record at page 23 of the paper book is reproduced as under: 4.3. Assessee submitted that the said deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act was allowed to it for all the preceding seven years. Aggrieved by the addition/disallowance, assessee went

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - (1), PANAJI vs. M/S GOA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED , PANAJI

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 453/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

10 years with initial assessment year as AY 2007-08. The activity wise profit and loss account placed on record at page 23 of the paper book is reproduced as under: 4.3. Assessee submitted that the said deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act was allowed to it for all the preceding seven years. Aggrieved by the addition/disallowance, assessee went

SHRI. GOMATESH CO-OPP. CREDIT SOC. LTD.,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, NIPANI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 248/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

38 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief fact is that all the cooperative societies invested their surplus funds in Cooperative Bank and accordingly the interest was earned. The assessee claimed the interest as deduction u/s 80P but the Ld. AO disallowed

SHRI. GOMATESH CO-OPP. CREDIT SOC. LTD.,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, NIPANI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 249/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

38 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief fact is that all the cooperative societies invested their surplus funds in Cooperative Bank and accordingly the interest was earned. The assessee claimed the interest as deduction u/s 80P but the Ld. AO disallowed

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 No

ITA 431/PAN/2018[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

38 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief fact is that all the cooperative societies invested their surplus funds in Cooperative Bank and accordingly the interest was earned. The assessee claimed the interest as deduction u/s 80P but the Ld. AO disallowed

PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI BANK,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 443/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

38 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief fact is that all the cooperative societies invested their surplus funds in Cooperative Bank and accordingly the interest was earned. The assessee claimed the interest as deduction u/s 80P but the Ld. AO disallowed

M/S VEERASHAIVA CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED,ATHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 445/PAN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

38 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief fact is that all the cooperative societies invested their surplus funds in Cooperative Bank and accordingly the interest was earned. The assessee claimed the interest as deduction u/s 80P but the Ld. AO disallowed

M/S NERALI URBAN CO-OPRATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,NERALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), BELAGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 446/PAN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

38 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief fact is that all the cooperative societies invested their surplus funds in Cooperative Bank and accordingly the interest was earned. The assessee claimed the interest as deduction u/s 80P but the Ld. AO disallowed

HEGDEKATTA GROUP GRAMAGALA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD.,SIRSI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SIRSI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 210/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

38 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief fact is that all the cooperative societies invested their surplus funds in Cooperative Bank and accordingly the interest was earned. The assessee claimed the interest as deduction u/s 80P but the Ld. AO disallowed

THE YAMAKANMARDI LAXMI URBEN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT .,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (WARD) 1(1), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 222/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

38 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief fact is that all the cooperative societies invested their surplus funds in Cooperative Bank and accordingly the interest was earned. The assessee claimed the interest as deduction u/s 80P but the Ld. AO disallowed

SHRI SHIVAYOGI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 244/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

38 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief fact is that all the cooperative societies invested their surplus funds in Cooperative Bank and accordingly the interest was earned. The assessee claimed the interest as deduction u/s 80P but the Ld. AO disallowed