Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

177 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai17,262 Delhi13,622 Chennai4,850 Bangalore4,799 Kolkata4,442 Ahmedabad1,987 Pune1,759 Hyderabad1,484 Jaipur1,270 Surat863 Indore761 Chandigarh702 Raipur584 Karnataka563 Rajkot510 Cochin479 Visakhapatnam449 Amritsar387 Nagpur382 Lucknow355 Cuttack263 Panaji177 Agra170 Telangana153 Jodhpur152 Ranchi146 Guwahati137 Patna130 SC129 Dehradun102 Allahabad88 Calcutta86 Kerala61 Varanasi52 Jabalpur48 Punjab & Haryana29 Rajasthan11 Orissa9 Himachal Pradesh7 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN6 Gauhati2 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Andhra Pradesh1 Tripura1 Uttarakhand1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Bombay1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)104 Section 143(3)93 Deduction81 Disallowance75 Section 80P67 Section 80P(2)(d)50 Section 80I48 Addition to Income46 Section 4037 Section 80P(4)

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance of expenditure or increase

Showing 1–20 of 177 · Page 1 of 9

...

35

Section 143(1)29

NAVANIRMAN MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BELAGAVI

ITA 116/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 116/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navanirman Multipurpose Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Laxmi Nagar, Hindalaga, Dist. Belagavi.-591108 Pan : Aacan0420G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; By Captioned Appeal The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1074658686(1) Dt. 18/03/2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 15/02/2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By National Faceless E- Asstt Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P(2)

1) r.w.s. 80A(5) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 10 Navanirman Multipurpose Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO ITA Nos.116/PAN/2025 AY: 2016-17 3. Aggrieved by denial of deduction the assessee unsuccessfully contested the dispute in first appeal before the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A). Dissatisfied by the actions of tax authorities below the assessee instituted the present

PRIME MINERAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH FOMENTO RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED),PANAJI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

ITA 3/PAN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 003/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) 102, 1St Fl. Kamat Metropolis-1, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa-403001. . . . . . . .Appellant Pan : Aadcp1647E V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . Respondent Range-1, Panaji, Goa

For Appellant: Mr Nishant Thakkar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M. Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 41(1)Section 4I

disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) and not on the basis of the average of total value of investments appearing in the audited balance sheet of the appellant. 3. ⁠(a) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,10,11,120/- made by the AO on account of alleged discrepancy in valuation of closing stock

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

ITA 30/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr Sateesh Nadagauda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

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

ITA 63/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr Ramesh Mudhol [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

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

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

ITA 32/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Sureshkumar C.B.[‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 24Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

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

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE., MARGAO

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

ITA 118/PAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

section 41(1) made addition of Rs.59,03,90,714/-. Similarly, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had called for the details of the provisions for expenses debited to Profit & Loss Account which remains unpaid as on 31.03.2011. The details of such provisions are set out by the Assessing Officer vide para 6 of the assessment order

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, MARGAO., MARGAO vs. M/S SALGAONCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., PANAJI

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

ITA 135/PAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

section 41(1) made addition of Rs.59,03,90,714/-. Similarly, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had called for the details of the provisions for expenses debited to Profit & Loss Account which remains unpaid as on 31.03.2011. The details of such provisions are set out by the Assessing Officer vide para 6 of the assessment order

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

ITA 11/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr A S Patil [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

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

SHRI BHAGYALAXMI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MALLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU

Appeals are ALLOWED

ITA 1/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 001/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Mallapur, Pg Main Rd., Ghataprabha, Karnataka-591306 Pan: Aaaas5624D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent & आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 030/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Sangam Souharda Credit Sahakari Ltd., A/P. Galgali, Taluka-Bilgi, Dist.-Bagalkot-587117 Pan: Aaeas3685G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sateesh Nadagouda For Ita No. 001& None For Ita No. 030 [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; These Two Appeals Of Different Assessee Are Instituted U/S 253(1) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] Against Respective Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Sateesh Nadagouda forFor Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246(1)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80ASection 80A(1)Section 80P

disallow 80P deduction in summary assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 7 ITA No.001 & 030/PUN/2023 AY 2018-19 Belated Return-143(1)(a)(v) 8. Let us deal with issue of eligibility of the claim of deduction u/s 80P of VI-A of the Act first; it goes without saying that, by virtue

M/S SANGAM SOUHARD CREDIT SAHAKARI LIMITED,BAGALKOT vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Appeals are ALLOWED

ITA 30/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 001/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Mallapur, Pg Main Rd., Ghataprabha, Karnataka-591306 Pan: Aaaas5624D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent & आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 030/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Sangam Souharda Credit Sahakari Ltd., A/P. Galgali, Taluka-Bilgi, Dist.-Bagalkot-587117 Pan: Aaeas3685G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sateesh Nadagouda For Ita No. 001& None For Ita No. 030 [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; These Two Appeals Of Different Assessee Are Instituted U/S 253(1) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] Against Respective Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Sateesh Nadagouda forFor Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246(1)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80ASection 80A(1)Section 80P

disallow 80P deduction in summary assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 7 ITA No.001 & 030/PUN/2023 AY 2018-19 Belated Return-143(1)(a)(v) 8. Let us deal with issue of eligibility of the claim of deduction u/s 80P of VI-A of the Act first; it goes without saying that, by virtue

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

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 270/PAN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 8

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

MUKTAR AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,VERNA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 47/PAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Adv. Ms Eesha Dukle forFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

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

ITA 41/PAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Adv. Ms Eesha Dukle forFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 35/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

disallowance of capital expenditure of ₹20,70,58,100/- u/s 37(1) of the Act as, a sum paid to State Govt. for conversion of land for enduring period of 20 years. 6. Aggrieved assessee filed separate appeals before Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) and agitated the aforementioned disallowances/additions made in former twin assessments but remained unsuccessful. Aggrieved by the ex-parte

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 34/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

disallowance of capital expenditure of ₹20,70,58,100/- u/s 37(1) of the Act as, a sum paid to State Govt. for conversion of land for enduring period of 20 years. 6. Aggrieved assessee filed separate appeals before Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) and agitated the aforementioned disallowances/additions made in former twin assessments but remained unsuccessful. Aggrieved by the ex-parte

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 176/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section 250(6) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 16 M/s Potdar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 177/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section 250(6) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 16 M/s Potdar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 175/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section 250(6) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 16 M/s Potdar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 180/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section 250(6) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 16 M/s Potdar