CHITTIBABU GHANTA,PANAJI, GOA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

section 253 of the Act, every appeal u/s 253(1) or 253(2) of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal is required to be filed ‘within sixty days of the date on which order sought be appealed is communicated to the assessee’. W.e.f. 01/10/2024 the period of limitation amended to ‘two months from the end of the month in which

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,GOA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

section 253 of the Act, every appeal u/s 253(1) or 253(2) of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal is required to be filed ‘within sixty days of the date on which order sought be appealed is communicated to the assessee’. W.e.f. 01/10/2024 the period of limitation amended to ‘two months from the end of the month in which

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,GOA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

section 253 of the Act, every appeal u/s 253(1) or 253(2) of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal is required to be filed ‘within sixty days of the date on which order sought be appealed is communicated to the assessee’. W.e.f. 01/10/2024 the period of limitation amended to ‘two months from the end of the month in which

SHRI LEO DINIZ,BORDA, FATORDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, PANAJI

The appeal is DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Leo Deniz Row House No. 6 J P Andrade Residency, Borda Fatorda, Goa-403602 Pan: Amgpd8687A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging Order Dt.

section 253 of the Act, is subject to fulfilment of certain pre-conditions which inter-alia dilated as; (i) the delay to be supported by an application/petition requesting condonation and (ii) also to be supported by an affidavit explaining reasons behind such delay and (iii) such reason stated in affidavit should form ‘sufficient cause’ for such substantial delay requested

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

35] was not delivered because subsequent to filing of first appeal the said business address was shifted to new location by and such change was never communicated to Ld. CIT(A) and (ii) for the purpose of filing second appeals u/s 253(1) of the Act the copies of impugned order ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 22 JAP Restaurant

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

35] was not delivered because subsequent to filing of first appeal the said business address was shifted to new location by and such change was never communicated to Ld. CIT(A) and (ii) for the purpose of filing second appeals u/s 253(1) of the Act the copies of impugned order ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 22 JAP Restaurant

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

35] was not delivered because subsequent to filing of first appeal the said business address was shifted to new location by and such change was never communicated to Ld. CIT(A) and (ii) for the purpose of filing second appeals u/s 253(1) of the Act the copies of impugned order ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 22 JAP Restaurant

JAGANUR VIVIDODDHESH PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKAR SANGH NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPPANI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.454/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2017-18 ) Jaganur Vividoddhesh I.T.O-Ward-1, Vs Prathamik Grameen Krushi Nemchand Building, . Sahakar Sangh Niyamit, 747,Ashoknagar, Jaganur, Tq.Chikkodi, Nipani-591237, Dist Belgaum-591305, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan No: Aabap7922L

1) of the Act and the conditions stipulated under section 80AC of the Act are not complied by the assessee and the A.O has denied the claim of deduction u/sec80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.48,49,739/- and passed the order u/sec144 of the Act dated 16.10.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order

GOURISH GOPINATH DESAI,UTTAR KANNADA vs. ITO -2, KARWAR, KARWAR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 284,285 & 286/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2014-15 ) Gourish Gopinath Desai, Vs Ito-Ward-2, Katgal Kumta, Aayakar Bhavan, . Uttar Kannada-581444, Karwar-581301, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan No:Bfwpd9695E

section 68 of the Act(i)opening balance of Rs.10,29,558/- and (ii) similarly Rs.9,94,319/- and assessed the total income of Rs.23,35,660/- and passed the order u/sec 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 03.05.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas

GOURISH GOPINATH DESAI ,KARWAR vs. ITO -2, KARWAR , UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 284,285 & 286/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2014-15 ) Gourish Gopinath Desai, Vs Ito-Ward-2, Katgal Kumta, Aayakar Bhavan, . Uttar Kannada-581444, Karwar-581301, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan No:Bfwpd9695E

section 68 of the Act(i)opening balance of Rs.10,29,558/- and (ii) similarly Rs.9,94,319/- and assessed the total income of Rs.23,35,660/- and passed the order u/sec 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 03.05.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas

GOURISH GOPINATH DESAI,UTTAR KANNADA vs. ITO -2, KARWAR, KARWAR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 284,285 & 286/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2014-15 ) Gourish Gopinath Desai, Vs Ito-Ward-2, Katgal Kumta, Aayakar Bhavan, . Uttar Kannada-581444, Karwar-581301, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan No:Bfwpd9695E

section 68 of the Act(i)opening balance of Rs.10,29,558/- and (ii) similarly Rs.9,94,319/- and assessed the total income of Rs.23,35,660/- and passed the order u/sec 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 03.05.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas

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’].

1) or 253(2) of the Act is required to be filed within two months from the end of the month in which order sought to be appealed is communicated to the assessee. In view thereof the present twin appeals are filed with a 19 days delay. Thus these appeals are filed beyond the statutory period of two month from

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’].

1) or 253(2) of the Act is required to be filed within two months from the end of the month in which order sought to be appealed is communicated to the assessee. In view thereof the present twin appeals are filed with a 19 days delay. Thus these appeals are filed beyond the statutory period of two month from

THE SHIRODA PROGRESSIVE URBAN MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.272 & 273/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21 ) The Shiroda Progressive Urban Vs I T O, Multipurpose Cooperative National E Assessment . Society Limited, Centre, Shop.No.4, Opp: Police Station, Delhi. Shiroda Bhat, Ponda-403103.Goa Pan .No. Aabat7206P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining (i) denial of deduction u/sec80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of interest from other banks and(ii) no deduction u/sec80P(2)(c) of the Act was allowed. 3. Since the issues involved in these

THE SHIRODA PROGRESSIVE URBAN MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.272 & 273/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21 ) The Shiroda Progressive Urban Vs I T O, Multipurpose Cooperative National E Assessment . Society Limited, Centre, Shop.No.4, Opp: Police Station, Delhi. Shiroda Bhat, Ponda-403103.Goa Pan .No. Aabat7206P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining (i) denial of deduction u/sec80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of interest from other banks and(ii) no deduction u/sec80P(2)(c) of the Act was allowed. 3. Since the issues involved in these

M/S SHIRAGAO PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELAGAVI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

condone the delay. 3. The assessee has raised the following pleadings in the instant appeal : 4. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action denying sec.80P deduction involving alleged nominal members as well as deposits of surplus funds in various banks, it is noticed that this tribunal’s recent coordinate bench

PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,SALAPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 1(5), BELAGAVI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

delay of 151 days in filing of the instant appeal stands condoned therefore. 4. Next comes assessee’s sole substantive grounds on merits that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in rejecting its section 80P(2)(d) deduction claim of Rs.9,35,731/- representing interest income derived from fixed deposits made with M/s. Belgavi District

GURUNATH GUNDU GOJAGEKAR,BELAGAVI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELGAVI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 143/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gurunath Gundu Gojagekar 508, Hindu Nagar, Tilakwadi, Belgavi-590006. Pan : Aappg4152N . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073157632(1) Dt. 12/02/2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Rectification Dt. 02/03/2021 Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Belagavi [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2013-14 [‘Ay’].

1 of 4 Gurunath Gundu Gojagekar Vs ACIT ITA Nos.143/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 2. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay of 15 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