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)

143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued calling for the explanations and evidences to substantiate the claims made in the return of income filed. Whereas the assessee has filed the information and details from time to time. The assessing officer on perusal of financial statements find that the assessee has offered interest on FD and IDBI

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 28/03/2016 was completed wherein the Ld. AO inter-alia disallowed a sum of ₹16Crs paid to the Government of Goa in the form of stamp duty towards renewal of mining lease/licence for a period of twenty (20) years which was claimed as revenue expenditure in the year of payment

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 and details submitted and has rejected the claim. On the second disputed issue, the A.O find that the assessee has purchased the trawler for Rs.60,00,000/- and claimed depreciation @ 20% i.e Rs.12,00,000/-.The A.O observed that the trawler was registered by the authorities after71 days from the financial year ending

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 and details submitted and has rejected the claim. On the second disputed issue, the A.O find that the assessee has purchased the trawler for Rs.60,00,000/- and claimed depreciation @ 20% i.e Rs.12,00,000/-.The A.O observed that the trawler was registered by the authorities after71 days from the financial year ending

DEMPO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing At Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 131/Pan/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dempo Industries Pvt. Ltd., Dempo House, Campal, Panaji, Goa - 403001 Pan: Aaacu1745F . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 29/03/2016 by disallowing additional depreciation of ₹21,69,257/- claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on threefold reasons viz; (1) the business of newspaper publication do not amount to manufacturing or production of any article or thing (2) items against which additional depreciation is claimed do not qualify

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

143(3) for A.Yr.2009-10 on 27.03.2011 and additions were made to the total income which included disallowance of depreciation and addition to house property income. As appellant is covered by section

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

143(3) for A.Yr.2009-10 on 27.03.2011 and additions were made to the total income which included disallowance of depreciation and addition to house property income. As appellant is covered by section

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

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and the judicial decisions Whereas the Assessing Officer (A.O.) was not satisfied with the explanations of the assessee and recomputed the total income and partly denied the claim of deduction u/sec80P of the act and similarly made disallowance of depreciation and assessed the total income of Rs.12,64,240/- and passed the order

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

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

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

143(3) is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT erred in holding that stamp duty fee and registration fee are capital in nature and connot be allowed as deduction under the Act. 4. The appellant craves to add, alter

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’]

143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 28/03/2016 was completed assessing the total income in variation to the income returned at ₹120,50,75,226/-. By rectification order dt. 12/12/2009 the assessed total income rectified to ₹120,38,98,944/- u/s 154 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 16 M/s Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. Vs DCIT

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

143(3) of the Act wherein three bullet additions owning corresponding disallowances were made viz; (a) ₹2,25,000/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D2(iii) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 [‘IT-Rules’ hereinafter] (b) ₹37,27,447/- disallowance u/s 40(a) r.w.s. 195 of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source from sampling charges paid

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PANAJI., 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.62/Pan/2017 (A.Y.2012-13 ) Guala Closures(India) Vs. I T O Ward1(1), Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, D-1, Seasa Ghor, Edc, Patto, 20,Edc Complex, Panjim-403001. Patto, Goa. Panaji-403001, Goa Pan/Gir No.:Aaacg4447J Appellant .. Respondent

section 115(O) of the Act is applicable and not at the rate of tax applicable to nonresident share holders as specified in the relevant DTAA on such dividend income and accordingly this additional ground of appeal of the assesse is dismissed. 6. The Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business