JAP RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED,ANJUNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

143(3)/143(3) of the Act. 2. The case was called twice; none appeared at the behest of the appellant assessee company. The order sheet entries showed that, this bunch of appeals were instituted on 08/01/2024 and with due notice these were listed for hearing first time on 10/06/2024 wherein the appellant was represented virtually by Ld. Counsel

JAP RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED,ANJUNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

143(3)/143(3) of the Act. 2. The case was called twice; none appeared at the behest of the appellant assessee company. The order sheet entries showed that, this bunch of appeals were instituted on 08/01/2024 and with due notice these were listed for hearing first time on 10/06/2024 wherein the appellant was represented virtually by Ld. Counsel

JAP RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED,ANJUNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

143(3)/143(3) of the Act. 2. The case was called twice; none appeared at the behest of the appellant assessee company. The order sheet entries showed that, this bunch of appeals were instituted on 08/01/2024 and with due notice these were listed for hearing first time on 10/06/2024 wherein the appellant was represented virtually by Ld. Counsel

DINKAR KASHIMATH PATIL,MARCELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-W-1(3),PANAJI, PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.10/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Dinkar Kashimath Patil, Vs National Faceless H.No.322/3,Ganpatiwada, Assessment Centre, . Near Graceland,Khandola, Delhi. Marcela, Ponda-403107, . Goa. Pan/Gir No. Ajjpp9976E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has not filed the return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data found that the assesse has sold the immovable property of Rs.60,00,000/- in the F.Y.2017-18 and TDS was deducted under section 194IA

DEARHOOD FOUNDATION,BELAGAVI vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.202/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2022-23 ) Dear Hood Foundation, Ddit, Vs. Plot.No.1/S,Kanbargi Cpc, Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560500. Kanabargi.S.O, Karnataka. Belgaum-590015, Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aaicd1005D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri.Pramod Y Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Shri.Sanket Deshmukh.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm:

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that, the assesse is a company incorporated under section 8 of the companies Act 2013 and is also registered u/sec 12A(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has filed the return of income

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

143(3) of the Act by an order dt 28/12/2016 was completed wherein Ld. ACIT, Circle-1(1) Panaji [‘Ld. AO’] made two additions due to; (1) disallowance u/s 14A of ₹22,200/- and (2) disallowance of capital expenditure of ₹20,70,58,100/- u/s 37(1) of the Act as, a sum paid to State Govt. for conversion

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

143(3) of the Act by an order dt 28/12/2016 was completed wherein Ld. ACIT, Circle-1(1) Panaji [‘Ld. AO’] made two additions due to; (1) disallowance u/s 14A of ₹22,200/- and (2) disallowance of capital expenditure of ₹20,70,58,100/- u/s 37(1) of the Act as, a sum paid to State Govt. for conversion

CENTRE FOR INCUBATION AND BUSINESS ACCELERATION,VERNA vs. CENTRALIZE PROCESSING CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.152/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2024-25 ) Centre For Incubation & Vs. I T O- Exemption, Business Acceleration, Ward-1, Angel Charities, Pundalik Niwas, Angel Ashram, Panaji-403001, Verna, Salcete, Goa. Goa-403722. Pan/Gir No. Aafcc5621B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri.Mahendra Gohel.Ar Revenue By Smt. Rijula Uniyal. Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm:

143(1) of the Act on 28.01.2025 determining the total income of Rs.29,62,131/- by disallowing the claim of exemption u/sec 11 & u/sec11(2) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings

RAJA BHAT AND KUMUDA FOUNDATION,BELAGAVI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BELAGAVI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2022-23 Raja Bhat & Kumuda Foundation Plot No. 4, Rs No1368, Kumudini, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan:Aajcr6351B . . . . . . . Appellant

143(1) of the Act by the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [for short ‘Ld. CPC’] in relation to assessment year 2022-23 [for short ‘AY’] whereby claim of assessee for exemption is denied. ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 16 Raja Bhat & Kumuda Foundation Vs ITO ITA No.0270/PAN/2024 AY:2022-23 2. Tersely stated facts of the case are that

JAGDISH SAVANT,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BELGAUM

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.227/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Jagdish Shambhu Savant, Vs Ito-Ward-4, 102,Kaivalya Residency, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Budhwar Peth, Civil Hospital Road Belagavi-590006, Belagavi-590001. Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Assps9453P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

section 68 of the Act and made addition of unexplained cash credits of Rs.15,71,780/- and similarly made addition of unexplained investment in flat u/sec69A of Rs.10,37,348 and finally assessed the total income of Rs.33,00,198/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee

OJAS SHASHIKANT KULKARNI,MARGAO vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 050/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni A-3/A-4, C.D. Neighbourhood, Swami Chinmayanand Marg, Gogoi, Salcete, Margao, Goa Pan : Dkzpk5732F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D.E. Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1072026383(1) Dt. 09/01/2025 Passed By Addl//Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-2, Jaipur [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Intimation Dt. 26/11/2021 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Asstt. Direction Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’].

143(1) of the Act by Asstt. Direction of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru [‘Ld. AO’] anent to assessment year 2020-21 [‘AY’]. ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 10 Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni Vs ADIT ITA Nos.050/PAN/2025 AY: 2020-21 2. Without touching merits we have heard rival party’s submission on limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal owning

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

section 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

THE KARNATAKA MULTIPURPOSE SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,CHIKODI vs. E ASSESSMENT, NIPNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Karnataka Multipurpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit. Bhagyalaxmi Nagar, Chikodi, Belgavi-591201. Pan : Aaaat4824A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S National Faceless E-Asstt Centre, Delhi . . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Chetan Chougule [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1057730634(1) Dt. 06/11/2023 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Coimbatore, [‘Ld. Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Rectification Order Dt. 28/05/2021 Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Cpc’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

143(1) of the Act on 30/09/2018 and was received by the appellant on the very same day. The rectification application filed by the appellant against the prima-facie adjustment made in summary assessment was rejected by Ld. CPC on 28/05/2021. Against such order of rectification the appellant filed first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. NFAC

SUJATA SOUHARDHA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA,ANKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 067/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatha Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamita At.: Balale, Post.:Madangeri, Tal.:Ankola, Dist.: Uttara Kannada. Pan : Aafas2907J . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karwar . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Varun Bhat [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2025 Order

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act anent to assessment year 2013-14 [‘AY’]. ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4 Sujatha Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamita Vs ITO ITA Nos.067/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 2. The present appeal is time barred by 146 days. The appellant’s application for condonation of former delay is supported by an affidavit dt. 24/03/2025 whereby reasons

COFRE DO FUNDO DA CRUZ ALO DE BAMBOLIM,BAMBOLIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.305/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Cofre Do Fundo Da Cruz Alo Vs National E – De Bombolim, Assessment Centre, . 101/1,Holy Cross Shrine, Delhi-110001 Bambolim, Gmc Complex, . Bambolim-403202, Goa. Pan .No. Aabtc0675N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Smt.Pratibha.R. Ar Revenue By Shri.Deshmukh S Prakashsr.Dr

143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued and there was no proper compliance. Whereas the A.O found that the assesse has made the cash deposits aggregating to Rs.1,07,93,249/- in the bank accounts in the F.Y.2014-15 and explanations were called to substantiate the deposits. The assesse has filed the letter on 24.03.2022, mentioning that

JAI HIND SOUHARDA PATTIN SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELAGAVI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Jai Hind Souharda Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Bazar Road, Tal.: Hukkeri, Belgavi-591309 Pan:Aaajj0226F . . . . . . . Appellant

condone delay in instituting the present appeal u/s 253(1) of the Act and proceed to adjudicate limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). Recording the same, advanced accordingly. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that; the assessee is a Cooperative Society established under the provisions of State Co- operative Societies

M/S THE QUEPEM URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,QUEPEM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, MARGAO

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

delay of 150 days is condoned and both the appeals were heard on merits. 5. That now the only issue remains for adjudication in all these appeals is with regard to claim of deduction u/sec. 80P(2)(d) regarding interest income. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessees submitted that these matters are covered by the earlier decision

THE CANDOLIM URBAN CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,CANDOLIM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), PANAJI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

delay of 150 days is condoned and both the appeals were heard on merits. 5. That now the only issue remains for adjudication in all these appeals is with regard to claim of deduction u/sec. 80P(2)(d) regarding interest income. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessees submitted that these matters are covered by the earlier decision

THE PARSHWANATH CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELGAUM vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

delay of 150 days is condoned and both the appeals were heard on merits. 5. That now the only issue remains for adjudication in all these appeals is with regard to claim of deduction u/sec. 80P(2)(d) regarding interest income. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessees submitted that these matters are covered by the earlier decision