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

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

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

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 - 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

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 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. 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. 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

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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI vs. SHRI SHANU ATMARAM PAI PANANDIKAR, MARGAO

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for 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 by the Department and the same is pen~· · Court and accordingly the case is covered

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI vs. SHRI RAHOOL SHANU PAI PANANDIKER, MARGAO

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Capital Gain since during the year under consideration for 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 by the Department and the same is pen~· · Court and accordingly the case is covered

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

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].

capital gain accrued to the assessee and framed the consequential assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved by the ex-parte assessment the assessee instituted an appeal thereagainst before Ld. NFAC, which also came to be dismissed ex-parte owning to non-prosecution and in the absence of evidences. Aggrieved by impugned ex-parte order

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

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