ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowed. The AO held that since the Land Revenue Code stated provisions for procedure for conversion of use of land from one purpose to another and prescribed penalty

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowed. The AO held that since the Land Revenue Code stated provisions for procedure for conversion of use of land from one purpose to another and prescribed penalty

M/S SALITHO ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - M1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowed. The AO held that since the Land Revenue Code stated provisions for procedure for conversion of use of land from one purpose to another and prescribed penalty

THE BRAMHING MULTI PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETYLTD,BELGAUM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELGAUM

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

disallowed the bad debt claim of Rs.70,000/-and finally assessed the total income of Rs.48,06,837/- and passed the order U/sec143(3) r.w.s263 r.w,s144B of the Act. 3. Subsequently, the A.O. has initiated penalty

SHRI PANDMAVATI MINORITY MAHILA MULTI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.236/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Shri.Pandmavati Minority Vs. I T O, Mahila Multi Cooperative National E Assessment Society Limited, Centre, At & Post Shamanewadi, Delhi. Tq Chikodi, Belagavi-591214, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aagts2171N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

disallowed the claim of deduction u/sec80P of the Act to the extent of Rs.88,770/- and assessed the total income of Rs.88,770/- and passed the order u/sec143(3)r.w.s143(3A)&143(3B) of the Act dated 18.03.2021. 3. Subsequently, the A.O. has initiated penalty

JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs. M/S WALLACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD, PANAJI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowing the assessee’s foreign exchange losses of Rs.5,08,39,412/-. The CIT(A)'s findings extracted in preceding paragraphs stand upheld therefore. The Revenue fails in its first and former appeal ITA.No.289/PAN./2019. 5. The outcome would be hardly any different in Revenue’s latter appeal ITA.No.290/PAN./2019 involving sec.271(1)(c) penalty

JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs. M/S WALLACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD, PANAJI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowing the assessee’s foreign exchange losses of Rs.5,08,39,412/-. The CIT(A)'s findings extracted in preceding paragraphs stand upheld therefore. The Revenue fails in its first and former appeal ITA.No.289/PAN./2019. 5. The outcome would be hardly any different in Revenue’s latter appeal ITA.No.290/PAN./2019 involving sec.271(1)(c) penalty

SHRI ANANTANATH ALPASANKHYATAR VIVIDH UDDESHAGAL SOUHARD SAHAKARI SANGH NIY,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 006/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Anantanath Alpasankhyatar Vivid Uddheshagal Souhardha Sahakari Sangh Niyamit [‘Saavusssn’] 1738, Anantnath Building, Jain Galli, Main Rd., Kannur Niyamit Kalloli, Kalloli, Belagavi. Pan : Aagts1962B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Gokak, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sachin Nichal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Deshmukh Prakash [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed Against Din & Order 1070608483(1) Dt. 25/11/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Penalty Dt. 23/03/2022 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By The National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi [‘Ld. Nfeac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2009-10 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

penalty of ₹2,95,945/- equal to 100% of tax ought to have evaded on the assessed income. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 10 SAAVUSSSN Vs ITO, Gokak ITA Nos.006/PAN/2025 AY: 2009-10 2.2 Meanwhile the findings of the Ld. AO & the assessment was challenged by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A), who reversed the findings

SHRI BEERESHWAR CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD MADABHAVI,BELAGAVI vs. ITO WARD-2, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 487/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

penalty u/s 270A of the Act when appeal against quantum is pending for adjudication on merits. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee Mr Halbhavi and Ld. Uniyal representing respondent Revenue at length and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [‘ITAT- Rules’ hereinafter] perused the material placed on records

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

disallowing the excess depreciation claimed by the appellant. And since excess allowance of depreciation was never disputed before appellate forum, therefore doctrine of merger to this issue was inapplicable. For the reason, in the view of Ld. CIT(A), the period of four years within which order could have rectified u/s 154(7) of the Act had commenced from

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

disallowing the excess depreciation claimed by the appellant. And since excess allowance of depreciation was never disputed before appellate forum, therefore doctrine of merger to this issue was inapplicable. For the reason, in the view of Ld. CIT(A), the period of four years within which order could have rectified u/s 154(7) of the Act had commenced from

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

disallowing the excess depreciation claimed by the appellant. And since excess allowance of depreciation was never disputed before appellate forum, therefore doctrine of merger to this issue was inapplicable. For the reason, in the view of Ld. CIT(A), the period of four years within which order could have rectified u/s 154(7) of the Act had commenced from