EMGEE HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,GOA vs. JCIT(A), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 273/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Emgee Housing Private Vs Acit-Circle 1(1), Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, . 608, City Center Patto Plaza, Edc Complex, Panjim-403001, Patto Plaza, Goa. Panjim-403001, Goa. Pan .No.Aabce6688E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By None(Letter 10-03-25) Revenue By Ms.Nazeera Mohamad.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Addl/ Jcit(A) Kanpur Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Found That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Sufficient Cause Was Explained & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised

house property of Rs.1,99,08,000/- and also disallowed the expenses u/sec37(1) of the Act of Rs.4,31,468/- and finally

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

house property where assessee holds more than allowed number of units is brought to tax by expressed deeming fiction. Likewise, a notional expenditure in the form of depreciation is also allowed be charged to profits, but only by explicit provisions of law. Thus, in the absence of explicit provision of law, whenever a question as to the taxability of notional

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI vs. PRATEEK ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, PANAJI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 75/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of Rs.4 lacs for business expenditure which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Brief fact is that the assessee is a company. A search was conducted u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on M/s Vedarambh Properties LLP (Omkar Group). A subsequent survey proceeding u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on assessee

M/S PRATEEK ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 75/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of Rs.4 lacs for business expenditure which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Brief fact is that the assessee is a company. A search was conducted u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on M/s Vedarambh Properties LLP (Omkar Group). A subsequent survey proceeding u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on assessee

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

House, F.L. Gomes Road, Vasco Da Gama, Goa. PAN: AAACV 5950 B . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Ketan Ved [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 03/10/2023 आदेश / ORDER Per Bench: These three appeals of the Revenue are directed against the common

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

House, F.L. Gomes Road, Vasco Da Gama, Goa. PAN: AAACV 5950 B . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Ketan Ved [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 03/10/2023 आदेश / ORDER Per Bench: These three appeals of the Revenue are directed against the common

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

House, F.L. Gomes Road, Vasco Da Gama, Goa. PAN: AAACV 5950 B . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Ketan Ved [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 03/10/2023 आदेश / ORDER Per Bench: These three appeals of the Revenue are directed against the common

SHRI NITIN A SHIRGURKAR,BELGAVI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

property 7 I.T.A. No. 77/PAN/2020 I.T.A. No. 77/PAN/2020 Assessment Year: 2015 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nitin A. Shirgurkar Shri Nitin A. Shirgurkar at Bangalore, were not properly examined and verified by the ld. AO during the at Bangalore, were not properly examined and verified by the ld. AO during the at Bangalore, were not properly examined and verified

BELGAUM COAL & COKE CONSUMER CO-OP ASSOCIATION LTD,BELGAUM vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1), BELGAVI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 102/Pan/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Belgaum Coal & Coke Consumer Co-Operative Association Ltd. Khanapur Road, Udyambag, Belgaum-590 008. Pan : Aaaat4615M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Belagavi. ……""यथ" / Respondent

Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017) 46 CCH 52 (Mum). Accordingly, finding no justification on the part of the Pr. CIT, who in exercise of his powers under Sec. 263, had dislodged the view that was taken by the A.O as regards the eligibility of the assessee towards claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d), we „set aside

SANJAY ATCHUT POY RAITURCAR,MARGAO vs. ITO, WARD - 4 , MARGAO

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon. & (Through Virtual Hearing)

House, Rua Padre Miranda, Margao, Goa. PAN: ADJPP 0902 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Priyanka Kamat, AR Revenue by : Shri N. Shrikanth, DR Date of hearing : 05/07/2023 Date of pronouncement : 07/07/2023 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)-2, Panaji, dated

BEIERSDORF INDIA (P) LTD.,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

house was not able to clear our dues. The outstanding of Rs.4.8 crores against the broker’s name in effect represented the value of sales/closing stock as of the cut-off date due to the abrupt closure of trading on NSEL for no fault of the assessee. Let alone any connivance, the assessee did not even have any hint