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

250 of the Act. 3. As we note that, the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income on 04/08/2016 declaring income of ₹5,75,17,590/-. The case of the assessee, after recording reasons and obtaining approval from competent authority by notice dt. 19/02/2020 u/s 148 of the Act, was reopened for re-assessing difference of capital

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)

250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining (i)the disallowance of community development and village welfare expenses and(ii) disallowance of claim of expenses on stamp duty and registration charges of mining lease. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership

PRATIBHA P KULKARNI REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR CHIDAMBAR KULKARNI,BELAGAVI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.212/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Pratibha P Kulkarni Vs Dcit-Central Circle, Represented By Legal Heir Saraf Colony, . Chidambar Kulkarni, Khanaput, Plot.No.593, Block-1, Tilakwari, Sector.No.5, Shrinagar, Belagavi--590001, Belagavi-590016, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Adzpk4755G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

250 of the Act. The assesse has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 152 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed

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

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 is filed

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

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 is filed

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

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 is filed

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

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 is filed

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

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 is filed

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

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 is filed

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

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 is filed

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

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 is filed

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

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 is filed

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

EMCO GOA PRIVATE LIMITED,MARGAO vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gd Padmahshaliemco Goa Pvt Ltd, Vs. Adit, Cpc, Prasad Rawanfond, Bengaluru-560500. Aquea, Baixo,Navelim, Kar Margoa-403707, Goa. Nataka. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan No.Aaace3064F Appellant .. Respondent

250 of the Act. The assesse has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) partially sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Emco Goa Private Limited. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse company is engaged in the business of mining, machinery, hire and loading of bags. The assesse

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

capital gain of ₹2,93,33,256/- to tax as undisclosed income vide an assessment order dt. 24/09/2021 framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by aforestated assessment the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC on 20/10/2021, which ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 8 Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar Vs ITO ITA No.: 312/PAN/2025

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)

250 of the Act. The assesse has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining (i) the denial of setoff of carry forward losses and (ii) disallowance of claim of deduction u/sec57(iv) of the Act pertaining to the interest income earned on receipt of enhanced compensation made by the Assessing Officer. 2 ITA. No.207/PAN/2024

ALICE LOURDES MARTINS,CHINCHINIM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 039/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Alice Lourdes Martins 404, 1St-Palvem, Chinchinim Salcete, South Goa, Goa Pan : Abkpl2128D . . . . . . . Appellant

capital gain accrued her and framed consequential assessment u/s 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the ex-parte assessment the assessee instituted an appeal thereagainst before Ld. CIT(A), which also came to be dismissed ex-parte owning to non- prosecution and in the absence of evidences. Dissatisfied by impugned ex-parte order, the assessee came

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 Page 2 of 4 Cheryl Savia Indra Lobo Vs ACIT ITA Nos.275/PAN/2024 AY: 2016-17 4. Aggrieved by the assessment the assessee instituted an appeal thereagainst before Ld. NFAC, which also came to be dismissed ex- parte owning