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 36 due to non-fulfillment of conditions specified in relevant clauses’. Thus, it is evident that it is a case of `disallowance of expenditure’ and not `increase of income

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 in our ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 12

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

12. Undisputedly in the present case, the appellant society furnished its ITR beyond the prescribed due date (filed belated) but making therein claim for 80P(2) deduction. The claim for deduction was no doubt subjected to disallowance by application of provisions of clause (ii) of section 80AC of the Act, however there was complete absence of authority vested with

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

12. Undisputedly in the present case, the appellant society furnished its ITR beyond the prescribed due date (filed belated) but making therein claim for 80P(2) deduction. The claim for deduction was no doubt subjected to disallowance by application of provisions of clause (ii) of section 80AC of the Act, however there was complete absence of authority vested with

ACGL BBD EMPLOYEES COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BHUIMPAL HONDA SATTARI GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), PANAJ, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 212/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Acgl Bbd Employees Co-Op. Credit Society, Ltd. Bhuimpal Honda, Sattari, Bhuimpal, North Goa. Pan : Aaaaa8278M . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr S J Kamat [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/02/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066146872(1) Dt. 27/06/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 19/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Panaji [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

disallowed the deduction holding that the assessee is a cooperative bank and hence not eligible to claim deduction as per Section 80P(4) of the Act. The first and second appellate authority ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 12 ACGL Employee Co-op.Credit Society Ltd Vs ITO ITA No 212/PAN/2024 AY: 2017-18 and the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held

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

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

12,779/- was disallowed as capital expenditure. Similarly the A.O has made disallowance of dead rent expenses of Rs.9,62,328/- and also security 4 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye and Bros. charges and consultation fee of Rs.7,10,895/- and finally assessed the total loss of Rs.16,51,03,426/- and passed the order u/sec143(3) of the Act dated24.12.2018

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. 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, 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

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, 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

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

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

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

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

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