M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

section 37 of the Act which is applicable to the CSR in the case of the companies. Further the assessing officer has not doubted the genuineness of the expenditure but treated the same as not incidental to the business and made disallowance. The Ld.AR highlighted the ledger account copies of expenditure and TDS was deducted on the contractor payments

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

10% under Article 11 of the India -UK Tax Treaty. Upon the said question being answered the Department is at liberty to gross up the tax rate in an appropriate manner.” (Emphasis suppled) . Thus, 5. We considering the facts, submissions and ratio of the judicial decision restore this disputed issue for limited purpose to the file of the Assessing officer

VIJESH VITHAL TALAULICAR,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 230/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Vijesh Vithal Talaulicar Shri Ramnath Sadan, Dr. Dada Vaidya Road, Panaji, Goa Pan : Aaxpt9647D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji. ……""यथ" / Respondent

10,000 equity shares. It was further submitted by the assessee, that as per the terms of the aforesaid ‘agreement’ the rejection of dump lying outside the mining area would continue to belong to sellers alongwith all future rejection dump that would be generated. Backed by the aforesaid facts, it was claimed by the assessee that pursuant to a steep

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), PANAJI vs. M/S V. M. SALGAOCAR & BROTHERS (P) LTD., VASCO

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos. 209 To 211/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

depreciation of ₹5,10,91,191/- then allowed to appellant for the AY under consideration while framing the original assessment. While invoking the jurisdiction of 154 of the Act, the Ld. AO computed the period of limitation of four years with reference to consequential order dt. 28/03/2013 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. 3.4 When assessee assailed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), PANAJI vs. M/S V. M. SALGAOCAR & BROTHERS (P) LTD., VASCO

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos. 209 To 211/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

depreciation of ₹5,10,91,191/- then allowed to appellant for the AY under consideration while framing the original assessment. While invoking the jurisdiction of 154 of the Act, the Ld. AO computed the period of limitation of four years with reference to consequential order dt. 28/03/2013 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. 3.4 When assessee assailed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), PANAJI vs. M/S V. M. SALGAOCAR & BROTHERS (P) LTD., VASCO

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos. 209 To 211/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

depreciation of ₹5,10,91,191/- then allowed to appellant for the AY under consideration while framing the original assessment. While invoking the jurisdiction of 154 of the Act, the Ld. AO computed the period of limitation of four years with reference to consequential order dt. 28/03/2013 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. 3.4 When assessee assailed

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.

Section 148 of the Act, for which the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2015. In response to the said notice, return was filed on 04.06.2015 reporting the same total income as was reported originally. In the course of reassessment proceedings, Ld. AO noted that assessee has incurred expenditure on restaurant renovation amounting to Rs. 10

SMT BERTHA D'COSTA,CAVELOSSIM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.158 &159/Pan/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri.Julio D Costa, Vs Ito-Ward-2, H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6709F) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. Smt.Bertha D Costa, Ito-Ward-2, Vs H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. . Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6748N) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Shrinivas Nayak.Ar Revenue By Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesses (Husband & Wife) Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A) -1 Panaji Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesses Are Governed By The Portuguese Civil Code & Provisions Of Section 5A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Aconsolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience

section 44AD of the Act u/sec139(1) of the Act nor revised return of income was filed and this is the first time such claim was made for this assessment year only in comparison to earlier assessment years and these facts are not disputed by the Ld.AR. Hence considering the submissions and material placed in the course of hearing, this

SHRI JULIO D'COSTA,CAVELOSIM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.158 &159/Pan/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri.Julio D Costa, Vs Ito-Ward-2, H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6709F) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. Smt.Bertha D Costa, Ito-Ward-2, Vs H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. . Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6748N) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Shrinivas Nayak.Ar Revenue By Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesses (Husband & Wife) Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A) -1 Panaji Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesses Are Governed By The Portuguese Civil Code & Provisions Of Section 5A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Aconsolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience

section 44AD of the Act u/sec139(1) of the Act nor revised return of income was filed and this is the first time such claim was made for this assessment year only in comparison to earlier assessment years and these facts are not disputed by the Ld.AR. Hence considering the submissions and material placed in the course of hearing, this

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

section 14A rw rule 8D without verifying the records/submission that there are no direct or indirect expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. 10) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding that the appellant has failed to establish how exempt income is earned without incurring expenditure when in fact the circumstances in which such income is earned is already submitted

JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

10. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in concluding the assessment was subjected to proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act on valid grounds. 11. I note that the assessee filed return of income on 30-09-2009 and refund was granted through an intimation dated 21-03-2011. The time limit for completion

JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

10. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in concluding the assessment was subjected to proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act on valid grounds. 11. I note that the assessee filed return of income on 30-09-2009 and refund was granted through an intimation dated 21-03-2011. The time limit for completion

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2006-2007 M/S Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. Salgaonkar Bhava, Altino, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aabcs8862N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Impugns The Order Dt. 20/03/2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Dealt With Order Dt. 20/12/2011 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2006-07.[‘Ay’]

section 147 to 151 of the Act. This assessee’s post fact plea is a sheer example of principle of ‘Lex non cogit ad impossibilia’ that is asking the Ld. CIT(A) to do impossible. Admittedly, there was no legal ground alleged in Form No 35, and being so, the Ld. CIT(A) not duty bound to look into such

UMICORE AUTOCAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( ORIGINAL APPELLANT UMICORE ANANDEYA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),ZUARINAGAR, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.118 & 119/Pan/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

section 47(xiii) by reason of the premature transfer of shares. The Revenue preferred writ petition against the ruling of the AAR. During the pendency of the writ petition, the AO held that there was such short term capital gain of Rs.2.00 crore to the assesssee and as such depreciation of Rs.68,79,894/- was not allowed

UMICORE AUTOCAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( ORIGINAL APPELLANT UMICORE ANANDEYA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),ZUARINAGAR, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.118 & 119/Pan/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

section 47(xiii) by reason of the premature transfer of shares. The Revenue preferred writ petition against the ruling of the AAR. During the pendency of the writ petition, the AO held that there was such short term capital gain of Rs.2.00 crore to the assesssee and as such depreciation of Rs.68,79,894/- was not allowed

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

section 43AA nor ICDS-VI can be made applicable to the present case. The sole dispute hinges around nature of forex fluctuation loss as to ‘notional or real’ & ‘capital or revenue’. The Revenue setup it’s disallowance on twofold reasoning viz; (a) the forex fluctuation loss is notional in nature and (b) since it relates to cash equivalents, hence capital

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

section 5A of the Act was for the year under consideration engaged in the business of real estate development and construction in the name & style of ‘Sun Estate Developer’ and also a partner in M/s ‘SM Venture.’ The assessee filed his return of income on 30/03/2018 declaring total income at ₹4,47,72,090/- which was subjected to scrutiny

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

10-15 years without any borrowings. When we analyse the facts and circumstances of the present case, we clearly noted that on the issue involved in the present case, the AO has noted certain reason to dislodge the contention of the assessee in para 3 of the assessment order (supra) and, thereafter, by relying on the judgements