M/S VEEJAY FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

10 ITA.No.1/PAN./2022 employees’, but made the adjustment for `disallowance of expenditure’ with the remarks that :`Amounts debited to the profit and loss account, to the extent disallowance under section

SHRI BASAVESHWAR PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGHA N SUNADHOLI,SUNADHOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GOKAK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 030/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Basaveshwar Prathamik Krishi Pattin Sahakari Sangha At Post: Sundholi, Ta.: Sundholi Dist. Belagavi.-591310 Pan : Aahas0468A . . . . . . . Appellant

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80- IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 10

ALLAMAPRABHU VUSS NI, KALLOLI,KALLOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 063/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Allamaprabhu Vuss Niyamit Kalloli 09, Allamaprabhu Vuss Niyamit Kalloli, Kalloli So Dist. Belagavi. Pan : Aafaa8818E . . . . . . . Appellant

10. As on the date of processing the return summarily u/s 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act there was no enabling power vested with the Ld. CPC to apply provisions of section 80AC(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned action of disallowance

FOMENTO KARNATAKA MINING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH FOMENTO RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pan/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Fomento Karnataka Mining Vs. Jcit, Margao Range, Company Private Limited, Margao, Goa. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Private Limited), 102, 1St Floor, Kamat Metropolis-I, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa- 403001. Pan : Aaacf7487K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 27.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Trading In The Iron Ore. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.26,40,77,220/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) At A Total Income Of Rs.26,63,57,955/-. While Doing So, The Assessing Officer Made Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.15,49,787/-, Disallowance On Account Of Sundry Creditors Extracting As Fictitious Of Rs.7,30,948/-. 3. Being Aggrieved, An Appeal Was Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A) Contending That No Disallowance U/S 14A Is Required To Be Made In The Absence Of Any Expenditure Incurred To Earn The Exempt Income. It Was Also Contended That No Addition On Account Of Outstanding Creditors Is Required To Be Made, As The Credits Represent The Opening

section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the Assessing Officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, the nature of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing

PRIYADARSHANI MAHILA CO-OP CR. SOCIETY LTD,BELAGAVI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 032/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Priyadarshani Mahila Co-Op. Society Ltd. At Post: Kognoli, Ta.: Nippani Dist. Belagavi. Pan : Aabap2582L . . . . . . . Appellant

10. As on the date of processing the return summarily u/s 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act there was no enabling power vested with the Ld. CPC to apply provisions of section 80AC(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned action of disallowance

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

10 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the farmers were not parties to the contract in question and therefore, erred in upholding disallowance of provisions under Section

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

10 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the farmers were not parties to the contract in question and therefore, erred in upholding disallowance of provisions under Section

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT., BAGALKOT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

10 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the farmers were not parties to the contract in question and therefore, erred in upholding disallowance of provisions under Section

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

10 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the farmers were not parties to the contract in question and therefore, erred in upholding disallowance of provisions under Section

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

10 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the farmers were not parties to the contract in question and therefore, erred in upholding disallowance of provisions under Section

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

10 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the farmers were not parties to the contract in question and therefore, erred in upholding disallowance of provisions under Section

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

10 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the farmers were not parties to the contract in question and therefore, erred in upholding disallowance of provisions under Section

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

10 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the farmers were not parties to the contract in question and therefore, erred in upholding disallowance of provisions under Section

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT., BAGALKOT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

10 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the farmers were not parties to the contract in question and therefore, erred in upholding disallowance of provisions under Section

THE TISK USGAO URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowance involving varying sums, reading as under : 4 ITA.No.42/PAN/2019 5 ITA.No.42/PAN/2019 6 ITA.No.42/PAN/2019 3.1. It is in this factual backdrop that the first and foremost issue between the parties is that of denial of sec.80P (2) deduction to the assessee regarding it’s interest income derived from deposits made in cooperative banks, and that too involving

VIRUPAXAPPA SIDRAMAPPA BEMBALGI,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BELGAVU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 011/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S Virupakaxappa Sidramappa Bembalgi 580, Saraf Katta, Shahapur, Belgaum-590003. Pan : Aadfv3936F . . . . . . . Appellant

disallowance of (i) total URD purchases of ₹1,61,75,480/- and (ii) Labour charges paid for ornamentation ₹3,86,340/- or Option- (B) addition of ₹45,29,674/- on account of estimation of gross profit @40% of estimated ad-hoc sales/turnover of ₹250Lakhs. Since the first option(A) will result into profit of more than the turnover

M/S SHIRAGAO PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELAGAVI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.857,533/- as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order

RAJA BHAT AND KUMUDA FOUNDATION,BELAGAVI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BELAGAVI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2022-23 Raja Bhat & Kumuda Foundation Plot No. 4, Rs No1368, Kumudini, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan:Aajcr6351B . . . . . . . Appellant

10 of 16 Raja Bhat & Kumuda Foundation Vs ITO ITA No.0270/PAN/2024 AY:2022-23 13. The aforestated proposition has been fostered by catena of judicial precedents including ‘CIT(E) Vs Anjana Foundation’(supra), ‘Nav Chetna Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E)’[2024, 169 taxmann.com 543 (Bom)], ‘Shree Bhairav Seva Samiti Vs ITO’[2023, 101 ITR 708(Mum)] & ‘Sirur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

GOA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 41/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Goa Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, Sharma Shakti Bhavan, Edc Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa – 403 001 . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan:Aaacg7029G

section 43B of the Act. 7. Nota bene, a similar issue came before the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of “M/s Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ADIT, Bengaluru” vide ITA No. 320/PUN/2022 wherein the Tribunal following the latest judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Checkmate Services