M/S SANKAMTAL HOTEL PRIVATE LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 2 (1), BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Sankamtal Hotel Acit, Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd. Belagavi S. Parthasarathi, Advocate, 3/1, Pranava Vs. Complex, 5Th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore- 560 003. Pan: Aadcs 5106 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha R., Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), -Belagavi In Ita No.51/Bgm/2016-17 Dated 25.02.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Belagavi U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.03.2016 For A.Y. 2008-09. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit Are Placed On Record. From The Affidavit, We Note That The Assessee Was Out Of Station When The Appeal Memo Was Sent To Him By The Counsel For Its Signature & Therefore A Short Delay Of 5 Days Occurred. Considering The Petition & In The Interest Of Justice & Fair Play, We Find It Proper To Admit The Appeal & Proceed To Adjudicate Thereon.

justice and thus liable to be cancelled. 4. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the expenditures incurred towards change of flooring and bathroom fittings without changing the structure of the building. Accordingly, the expenditure incurred has to be allowed in full. 5. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the expenditure was incurred

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

nature the Ld. DR further stated ITAT-Panaji Page 11 of 20 M/s Sova Vs PCIT ITA No. 024/PAN/2024 AY: 2018-19 that, the direction dilated at para 8 of the impugned order was with a view to ensure that the assessee shouldn’t on one hand get expenditure capitalised for claiming depreciation and on other hand claim them doubly

M/S TRIMURTY INDUSTRIES,CUNCOLIM, SALCETE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Trimurty Industry, Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Plot No. M-20, Cuncolim Margao, Goa. Industrial Estate, Cuncolim, Salcette, Goa. Pan: Aadft 1136 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nagraj Kale, Fca Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals]-1, Panaji, Dated 02.07.2018 For A.Y.2009-10 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

depreciation and withdrawal of excess deduction claimed u/sec. 80IB. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). In spite of repeated notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and it was rather requested by the assessee that the ld.CIT(A) that issues may be decided on the basis of written

PEDNE TALUKA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PEDNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.198/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Pende Taluka Farmers Service Vs I T O Ward2(2), Co-Operative Society Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, . Sahakar Bhawan, Edc, Patto, Pernem, Panjim Goa-403512. Goa-403001. Pan .No. Aaaap0651P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Arun .F.Naik.Ar Revenue By Shri.Guru Kumar.S.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit (A)-12 Mumbai Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 154 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Application & Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Sufficient Cause Is Explained & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal

depreciation and assessed the total income of Rs.12,64,240/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 02-12-2016. 3 ITA. No. 198/PAN 2025. Pedne Taluka Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds

M/S TERACOM (P) LTD,PONDA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, PANAJI

In the result, the Stay applications filed by the assessee are infactious and are dismissed, and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 2/Pan/2025 & S A.2/Pan/2025 I T A. Nos. 3/Pan/2025 & S A.3/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y.2011-12 ) Teracom Ltd, Vs Jcit-Range-2, 55,1 St Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Patto, . Ponda Commerce Center Panaji, Ponda-403401, Goa-403001. Goa. . Pan .No. Aabct5254B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Rama Rivonkar.Ar Revenue By Shri.Capt Pradeep Arya.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02.07.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesse Against The Separate Orders Of The Nfac Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common & Similar, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & A Consolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Up Ita No.2/Pan/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A)

depreciation on revaluation of assets in computing book profits u/sec115JB of the Act(ii)disallowance u/sec14A of the Act (iii)excess claim of deduction u/sec80IC of the Act and (iv) foreign exchange on cancellation of contracts and interest income. Finally the assessing officer recomputed the deduction u/sec80IC and with other disallowances 3 ITA. No. 2&3/PAN/2025,S.A.2&3/PAN 2025. Teracom

M/S TERACOM (P) LTD,PONDA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, PANAJI

In the result, the Stay applications filed by the assessee are infactious and are dismissed, and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 2/Pan/2025 & S A.2/Pan/2025 I T A. Nos. 3/Pan/2025 & S A.3/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y.2011-12 ) Teracom Ltd, Vs Jcit-Range-2, 55,1 St Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Patto, . Ponda Commerce Center Panaji, Ponda-403401, Goa-403001. Goa. . Pan .No. Aabct5254B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Rama Rivonkar.Ar Revenue By Shri.Capt Pradeep Arya.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02.07.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesse Against The Separate Orders Of The Nfac Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common & Similar, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & A Consolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Up Ita No.2/Pan/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A)

depreciation on revaluation of assets in computing book profits u/sec115JB of the Act(ii)disallowance u/sec14A of the Act (iii)excess claim of deduction u/sec80IC of the Act and (iv) foreign exchange on cancellation of contracts and interest income. Finally the assessing officer recomputed the deduction u/sec80IC and with other disallowances 3 ITA. No. 2&3/PAN/2025,S.A.2&3/PAN 2025. Teracom

SURAJDATTA SAGUN MORAJKAR,NERUL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI GOA, PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Surajdatta Sagun Morajkar C/O. Sun Estate Developers, Next To Sal De Goa, Bhatti Waddo, Bardez, Goa-403114 Pan : Aempm7614J . . . . . . . Appellant

depreciation & site expenses and echoed the reasons of the Ld. AO in making the balance two additions made towards; (i) unexplained cash credit and (ii) cessation of outstanding balances payable etc. 6. However, we also note from the record that, during the course of assessment proceedings the Ld. AO vide latest notice dt. 28/12/2019 called upon the appellant to adduce

GOA MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.63/Pan/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Goa Minerals Private Limited, The Assistant P.B.No.14, Salgaocar House, V Commissioner Of Income Dr.F.L.Gomes Road, S Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vasco Da Gama, Goa. Goa – 403802 Pan: Aaacg 6716 C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Veer Raghavan – Ar Revenue By Shri N. Shrikanth – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2023

natural justice. 4. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 5. The appellant reserves the right to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal.” 2 Goa Minerals Pvt. Ltd., [A] Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) : 2. The ld.AR filed a paper book containing 175 pages. The ld.AR submitted that assessee

M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (SALT) PVT. LTD,MORMUGAO vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 390/Pan/2017 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S Chowgule & Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd., Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa – 403803. Pan: Aabcc 5595 J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Ms Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull Am; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Panaji-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 09/10/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Tousled Out Of Order Of Assessment Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-2, Margoa [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 27/07/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 23

justice, ergo we admit the additional evidence placed on our record u/r 29 of the Rules, as supportive in nature. 11. We shall now deal with the ground number “I” and its counter parts pertaining to disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules and to do so, it necessitates the reproduction of relevant provision

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A.No.344/Pan/2017 (A.Y.2013-14 ) Guala Closures(India) Vs. I T O Ward1(1), Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, D-1, Sesa Ghor, Edc, Patto, 20,Edc Complex, Panjim-403001. Patto, Goa. Panaji-403001, Goa Pan/Gir No.:Aaacg4447J Appellant .. Respondent

nature of income being dividend income, which is subject to DDT and under Section 115-O the dividend income is sought to be taxed at a rate of 20.36%. Section 90(2) of the Act of 1961 allow the appellant to apply the lower rate under the DTAA and Article 11(2) restrict tax rate of such dividend income