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

section 194A(3)(iv) no disallowance is warranted. warranted. 10. The Pr.CIT erred in setting aside the issue of TDS on T erred

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BELGAUM vs. ITO, (TDS), BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 32 To 34/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 State Bank Of India Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Regional Branch Office Belgaum Goaves, Hindwadi Belgaum – 590 011 [Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. D/R Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022 Order Per Bench: These Captioned Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Belagavi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)] Even Dt. 08/11/2017, For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Challenging The Non-Compliance Of Provisions U/S 201(1)/(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter “The Act’]. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Appellant/Assessee State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office Is A Banking Company Engaged In The Business Of Banking. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted At The Bank Premises To Verify Compliance With Tds/Tcs Provisions. The Ito Held That The Assessee Has Failed To Deduct Tax At Source On The Reimbursement Made Against Foreign Ltc To The Officers Of The Bank & Accordingly He Applied The Provisions Of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) & Charged Interest U/S 201(1A) Of The Act. In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2.1. Aggrieved The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Finding Of The Ao By Observing As Under:-

section 10(5) of the Act. Thus, the payment made to its employees is chargeable to tax and in that situation, the assessee is under obligation to deduct TDS on such payment, but the assessee did not do so for the reasons best known to it. We have also carefully examined the Circular placed by the ld. counsel

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BELGAUM vs. ITO, (TDS), BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 32 To 34/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 State Bank Of India Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Regional Branch Office Belgaum Goaves, Hindwadi Belgaum – 590 011 [Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. D/R Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022 Order Per Bench: These Captioned Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Belagavi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)] Even Dt. 08/11/2017, For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Challenging The Non-Compliance Of Provisions U/S 201(1)/(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter “The Act’]. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Appellant/Assessee State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office Is A Banking Company Engaged In The Business Of Banking. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted At The Bank Premises To Verify Compliance With Tds/Tcs Provisions. The Ito Held That The Assessee Has Failed To Deduct Tax At Source On The Reimbursement Made Against Foreign Ltc To The Officers Of The Bank & Accordingly He Applied The Provisions Of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) & Charged Interest U/S 201(1A) Of The Act. In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2.1. Aggrieved The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Finding Of The Ao By Observing As Under:-

section 10(5) of the Act. Thus, the payment made to its employees is chargeable to tax and in that situation, the assessee is under obligation to deduct TDS on such payment, but the assessee did not do so for the reasons best known to it. We have also carefully examined the Circular placed by the ld. counsel

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BELGAUM vs. ITO, (TDS), BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 32 To 34/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 State Bank Of India Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Regional Branch Office Belgaum Goaves, Hindwadi Belgaum – 590 011 [Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. D/R Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022 Order Per Bench: These Captioned Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Belagavi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)] Even Dt. 08/11/2017, For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Challenging The Non-Compliance Of Provisions U/S 201(1)/(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter “The Act’]. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Appellant/Assessee State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office Is A Banking Company Engaged In The Business Of Banking. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted At The Bank Premises To Verify Compliance With Tds/Tcs Provisions. The Ito Held That The Assessee Has Failed To Deduct Tax At Source On The Reimbursement Made Against Foreign Ltc To The Officers Of The Bank & Accordingly He Applied The Provisions Of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) & Charged Interest U/S 201(1A) Of The Act. In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2.1. Aggrieved The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Finding Of The Ao By Observing As Under:-

section 10(5) of the Act. Thus, the payment made to its employees is chargeable to tax and in that situation, the assessee is under obligation to deduct TDS on such payment, but the assessee did not do so for the reasons best known to it. We have also carefully examined the Circular placed by the ld. counsel

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, the investment made in shares of Sesa Goa Ltd., as is evident from the audited books of account is out of surplus money only and no borrowed funds were utilized. The assessee-company purchased 3,38,03,812 equity shares of M/s. Sesa

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, the investment made in shares of Sesa Goa Ltd., as is evident from the audited books of account is out of surplus money only and no borrowed funds were utilized. The assessee-company purchased 3,38,03,812 equity shares of M/s. Sesa

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

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

disallowing the deduction. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 10 Shri Basaveshwar Prathamik Krishi Pattin Sahakari Sangha Vs ITO, CPC ITA Nos.030/PAN/2025 AY: 2018-19 3. We have heard the rival party’s submission and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on records and considered the facts in the light of settled position

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

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

Appeals stands DISMISSED

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’].

3) of the Act are barred by limitation. In the event, irrespective of length of delay their admission in view s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act is subject to establishing satisfactorily ‘sufficient cause’ behind such occurrence of delay on record in first place. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 32 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Vs JCIT/ACIT ITA Nos.034 & 035/PAN/2025

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

Appeals stands DISMISSED

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’].

3) of the Act are barred by limitation. In the event, irrespective of length of delay their admission in view s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act is subject to establishing satisfactorily ‘sufficient cause’ behind such occurrence of delay on record in first place. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 32 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Vs JCIT/ACIT ITA Nos.034 & 035/PAN/2025

INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,DONA PAULA vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

3,14,334/- poles 10,89,334/- 10,89,334/- However, the A.O being of the view that the aforesaid payments were in the nature of donations to temple/panchayat had disallowed the same, for the reason that they were not eligible for deduction u/s.80G of the Act. 16. In our considered view, as observed by the CIT(Appeals), and rightly

ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., DONA PAULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

3,14,334/- poles 10,89,334/- 10,89,334/- However, the A.O being of the view that the aforesaid payments were in the nature of donations to temple/panchayat had disallowed the same, for the reason that they were not eligible for deduction u/s.80G of the Act. 16. In our considered view, as observed by the CIT(Appeals), and rightly

M/S SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TXATION), WARD -1, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 73/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

10 Crores on 17/09/2011. The appellant while making the payment towards purchase of the property did not deduct TDS as per the provisions of section 195 of the Act under a bonafide belief that the said sellers of the property were residents as per the Income-tax Act. Noticing the non-deduction of TDS as per section

SMT ALICIA NINETTE FIALHO GONSALVES,ILHAS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.82/Pan/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Alicia Ninette Fialho Gonsalves H.No.203, Villa Gonsalves, Chimbel, Ilhas, Goa – 403 006 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Panaji Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022

disallowance of Rs. 29,00,838/- made by the A.O under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 9 ITA.No.82/PAN/2018 Smt. Alicia Ninette Fialho Gonsalves, Goa. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th

SCORPIO IRON LTD,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

3) of Section 92C. However, Section 92CA provides that where the Assessing Officer (AO) considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may refer the computation of ALP in relation to an international transaction or specified domestic transaction to the TPO. For proper administration of the Income-tax Act, the Board has decided that the AO shall henceforth make

SHREE AMBEY FORGING PRIVAT LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - (4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

3) of Section 92C. However, Section 92CA provides that where the Assessing Officer (AO) considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may refer the computation of ALP in relation to an international transaction or specified domestic transaction to the TPO. For proper administration of the Income-tax Act, the Board has decided that the AO shall henceforth make

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

section 80AC of the Act, however there was complete absence of authority vested with the Ld. CPC to carry out the disallowance u/s 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned action of denial of 80P deduction to the appellant by the Ld. CPC was barred by jurisdiction, hence unlawful. And in the absence of any explicit power

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

3 balance. The ld. CIT(A) rejecting the contentions assessee confirmed the assessment order. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted before us that without recording a satisfaction as to how the contention of the appellant that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt income, the Assessing Officer