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-

gains under the provisions of the Act when transferred. Once the nature & character of transaction is established as capital acquisition, then; (a) the mode/nomenclature of payment in acquiring such capital asset, (b) the frequency of payment such as annual, term basis or onetime etc., and (c) the stage of discharge of payment towards viz; first instance/grant of licence

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

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 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 Ld.AR contentions are that the expenditure of payment of stamp duty and registrations charges are legal expenses in connection with the renewal of lease and is allowable as revenue expenditure. The Ld.AR highlighted the receipt of “sale

MAHENDRA PURUSHOTTAM NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

Accordingly. The ground thus stands allowed

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

capital gains (Long Term) of Rs. 2,93,33,256 being the difference between the stamp duty value of Rs. 14,32,37,500 adopted by him and actual sale consideration of Rs. 11,39,04,244 although it was legally impermissible for the assessing officer to adopt the above stamp duty value

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

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

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

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

13 as Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12 Panandikar Group ITA Nos.253 to 258 & 285 to 288/PAN/2019 AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 there were actual transfer of shares. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since prosecution complaint

M/S SHIRAGAO PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELAGAVI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

gains, was not immediately required by the assessee for lending money to the members, as there were no takers. Therefore they had deposited the money in a bank so as to earn interest. The said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of banking and therefore it is liable to be deducted in terms of Section

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.

10 ITA. No..116/PAN/2024 Shree Mahila Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit.. under Sec. 80P(2) (d) on the interest income earned on its investments/deposits with cooperative banks, therefore, the Pr. CIT was in error in exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 for dislodging the same. In fact, as observed by us hereinabove, the aforesaid view taken

THE BRAHMALING MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, BELGAUM

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

10.---The sixth disputed issue, where the AO and CIT(A) has not allowed the claim of deduction of interest income received from the cooperative society under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 13 ITA. No..254/PAN/2025 The Bramhaling Multi Purpose Co-Op Society Limited. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a Souharda credit niyamita registered under

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