PRIYA PRASAD SHIRODKAR,CALANGUTE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PANAJI, PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 053/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Priya Prasad Shirodkar H.No. 4/96, Prabhuwaddo, Calangute, Goa Pan : Akipg9924D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1065516948(1) Dt. 10/06/2024 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. 26/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfeac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

condone the aforestated delay and admit the same for adjudication on merit 3. Tersely stated facts of the case are that; the assessee is an individual who filed her return of income on 13/03/2021 declaring therein total income of ₹16,06,900/-. The said return of income without variation in first placed processed summarily

SRITHIK ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED,GOA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) PANAJI,GOA, PANAJI,GOA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year: 2016-17 Srithik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 3, Sanguem Industrial Estate, Sanguem, Goa-403704 Pan : Aaics1765P . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By: Mrs Girija Agrawal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing: 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges Din & Order No 1068425181(1) Dt. 06/09/2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Act Which Originated From Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. [‘Ld. Ao’].

delay in filing present appeal and find them fit for condonation, hence condoned in view of ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)]. 4. As we note that, the assessee is limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies

THE GOKAK TALUKA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCED CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LTD,GOKAK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELGAUM

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 274/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Gokak Taluka Agricultural Produced Co-Op. Marketing Society Ltd. Apmc Yard, Gokak, Dist. Belgaum Pan : Aaajt1462H . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr S Gadadi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/03/2025 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/250/2024-25/1065710654(1) Dt. 18/06/2024 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. 22/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

delay of 72 days in instituting present appeal, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), in the larger interest of judice deem it fit to condone the same and proceed to adjudicate