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

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

253(2) of the Act by the Revenue impugns separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-1, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] which in turn correspondingly arisen out of separate orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by captioned

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

253(2) of the Act by the Revenue impugns separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-1, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] which in turn correspondingly arisen out of separate orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by captioned

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

253(2) of the Act by the Revenue impugns separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-1, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] which in turn correspondingly arisen out of separate orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by captioned

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

253(2) of the Act by the Revenue impugns separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-1, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] which in turn correspondingly arisen out of separate orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by captioned

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

253(2) of the Act by the Revenue impugns separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-1, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] which in turn correspondingly arisen out of separate orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by captioned

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

253(2) of the Act by the Revenue impugns separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-1, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] which in turn correspondingly arisen out of separate orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by captioned

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

253(2) of the Act by the Revenue impugns separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-1, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] which in turn correspondingly arisen out of separate orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by captioned

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

253(2) of the Act by the Revenue impugns separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-1, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] which in turn correspondingly arisen out of separate orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by captioned

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

253(2) of the Act by the Revenue impugns separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-1, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] which in turn correspondingly arisen out of separate orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by captioned

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

253 of the Act which came into effect from 01/10/2024, the present appeal be treated as filed within the statutory time limit prescribed in law and thus requested to advance case on merits by condoning the delay considered if any. Delay (if considered) is condoned and advanced accordingly. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 20 DCIT Vs Esteem Industries

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

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

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

253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] impugns revisionary order dt. 01/12/2023 passed u/s 263 of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. PCIT’] which partly overturned order of assessment dt. 16/04/2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 20 M/s Sova Vs PCIT ITA No. 024/PAN/2024