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

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

57-59 of paper books and the adjudication of the Ld. Co-ordinate bench in the case of ‘Altisource Business Solution Pvt Ltd. Vs DCIT’ [TS-8000-ITAT- (Bangalore)-O]. It is further argued that, though section 43AA of the Act and ICDS-VI came into play at a later stage, the assessee’s claim for deduction of exchange loss

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. 10,57

SHRI LALJI PURSHOTTAM DABHOYYA PATEL,ALTINHO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

Depreciation disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of Rs.9,90,009/- was imposed. In appeal, the learned CIT(A), Panaji, sustained the additions made as well as the penalty imposed by the AO. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on various

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI vs. SHRI LALJI PURUSHOTTAM BABHOYYA PATEL, ALTINHO

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

Depreciation disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of Rs.9,90,009/- was imposed. In appeal, the learned CIT(A), Panaji, sustained the additions made as well as the penalty imposed by the AO. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on various

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

57. BFAR has based its decision on the definitional and conceptual framework of DDT holding that if it paid by the petitioner to its shareholder, it falls outside scope of DTAA as, (a) Dividend is an amount declared, distributed or paid by the Domestic Company out of the current or accumulated profits; (b) Dividend is additional income tax payable over

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, 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

57 (Bom.). 4.11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the purchase and sale of shares o Sesa Goa Ltd. by the appellant and in view of the judicial pronouncemen discussed in the earlier paras, I am of the considered opinion that acquiring shares of Sesa Goa Ltd. was a business decision and therefore, the gain earned on sale

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

57 (Bom.). 4.11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the purchase and sale of shares o Sesa Goa Ltd. by the appellant and in view of the judicial pronouncemen discussed in the earlier paras, I am of the considered opinion that acquiring shares of Sesa Goa Ltd. was a business decision and therefore, the gain earned on sale