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

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

VGM EXPORT,VASCO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 114/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vgm Export Suvarn Bandekar Building, Swatantra Path, Vasco, Goa Pan : Aaafv6197P . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr P B Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2025

capital in nature. The ld. AO and the Hon. CIT(A) have incorrectly applied the rationale on the Hon. Delhi HC in the matter of Philips Petroleum International Corp. in the current case.’ 4. During the course of hearing the Ld. Senior Counsel Mr Deshpande submitted that, for the year under consideration the assessee was predominantly engaged in export

THE ADARSH CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED.,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), BELAGAVI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.26 To 28/Pan/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Adarsh Co-Op. Credit Ito, Ward-1(2), Society Ltd. Bagalkot Vs. A-P: Jugul, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum-591252. Pan: Aaaas 5616 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate 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: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Belagavi In Ita No. Cit(A)/Bgm/10349/2015-16, Cit(A)/Bgm/10518/2014-15 & Cit(A)/Bgm/10136/2015-16 All Dated 27.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Ward-1(2), Belgaum U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2018 & For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.09.2014 & 24.08.2015. 2. The Only Issue In These Three Appeals Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds In All The Appeals & Hence, We Take The Facts & Grounds From Ita No. The Adarsh Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 26/Pan/2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Relevant Grounds Raised By Assessee Are Reads As Under:

254 of the Act noted that assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs. 27,63,583/- by holding that assessee is a primary co-operative bank since all the three conditions in section 5(ccv) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as below are satisfied. i. The primary object

THE ADARSH CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED.,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), BELAGAVI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.26 To 28/Pan/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Adarsh Co-Op. Credit Ito, Ward-1(2), Society Ltd. Bagalkot Vs. A-P: Jugul, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum-591252. Pan: Aaaas 5616 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate 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: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Belagavi In Ita No. Cit(A)/Bgm/10349/2015-16, Cit(A)/Bgm/10518/2014-15 & Cit(A)/Bgm/10136/2015-16 All Dated 27.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Ward-1(2), Belgaum U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2018 & For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.09.2014 & 24.08.2015. 2. The Only Issue In These Three Appeals Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds In All The Appeals & Hence, We Take The Facts & Grounds From Ita No. The Adarsh Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 26/Pan/2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Relevant Grounds Raised By Assessee Are Reads As Under:

254 of the Act noted that assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs. 27,63,583/- by holding that assessee is a primary co-operative bank since all the three conditions in section 5(ccv) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as below are satisfied. i. The primary object

THE ADARSH CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED.,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), BELAGAVI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.26 To 28/Pan/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Adarsh Co-Op. Credit Ito, Ward-1(2), Society Ltd. Bagalkot Vs. A-P: Jugul, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum-591252. Pan: Aaaas 5616 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate 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: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Belagavi In Ita No. Cit(A)/Bgm/10349/2015-16, Cit(A)/Bgm/10518/2014-15 & Cit(A)/Bgm/10136/2015-16 All Dated 27.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Ward-1(2), Belgaum U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2018 & For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.09.2014 & 24.08.2015. 2. The Only Issue In These Three Appeals Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds In All The Appeals & Hence, We Take The Facts & Grounds From Ita No. The Adarsh Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 26/Pan/2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Relevant Grounds Raised By Assessee Are Reads As Under:

254 of the Act noted that assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs. 27,63,583/- by holding that assessee is a primary co-operative bank since all the three conditions in section 5(ccv) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as below are satisfied. i. The primary object

JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs. M/S WALLACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD, PANAJI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 37(1) of the Act. 5. Whether on facts of the case, the CIT(A), Panaji-1 erred in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC) to state that fluctuation in the rate of exchange with respect to loans taken

JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs. M/S WALLACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD, PANAJI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 37(1) of the Act. 5. Whether on facts of the case, the CIT(A), Panaji-1 erred in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC) to state that fluctuation in the rate of exchange with respect to loans taken