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

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

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].

section 80A(5) and 80AC(ii) are not applicable to the year under consideration. To buttress the proposition the Ld. AR relied on the decision of Ld. Co-ordinate bench in the case of ‘Rajashree Shahu Co-Op. Credit Society’ in ITA No 19/PAN/2024 dt. 04/06/2024 whereby the 80P(2) disallowance made by the Revenue for belated filing of return

BEIERSDORF INDIA (P) LTD.,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

5. On careful consideration of the above rival submissions, from the assessment order we observed that before the A.O. the assessee filed written submissions dated 14.12.2016, which reads as follows : 7 ITA.No.337/PAN./2018 Beiersdorf India Pvt. Ltd., Panaji, Goa. “We had invested in commodity contract. The total outstanding as on 31.3.2014 was Rs.4,80,13,874/-. The cases

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

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

Appeals are ALLOWED

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].

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

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].

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

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

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

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

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

10 Shri Basaveshwar Prathamik Krishi Pattin Sahakari Sangha Vs ITO, CPC ITA Nos.030/PAN/2025 AY: 2018-19 5. As we note, the rival parties has no dispute over the application of provisions of section 80AC(ii) of the Act which for the purpose of allowance of claim u/c VI-A of the Act mandates the filing of return with a such

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

10. However it is pertinent to mention here that the Tribunal while taking into account Section 32 of the Act, has held that since Section 32 of the Act does not provide any specific provision for exercising the option within the time limit, therefore, the condition imposed in the second proviso of Rule 5(1A) of the Rules

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

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

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

disallowance in our considered view was beyond Ld. CPC’s jurisdiction or authority. 11. We find the that, a similar issue came for consideration before Co-ordinate bench in ‘Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Cr. Soc. Ltd. Vs DCIT’, ‘M/s Sangam Souharda Cr. Sah. Ltd. Vs DCIT’ [ITA No 01 & 30/PAN/2023 dt. 01/09/2023] wherein vide para 10-13 was held as; ‘10

PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,SALAPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 1(5), 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

THE NUTAN MAHILA URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,MUNAVALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1), BELAGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

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

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

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

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

BIDRAKAN GROUP GRAMAGALA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD.,BIDRAKAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, SIRSI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

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

M/S PRATHMIK KRUSHI SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMIT,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELGAUM

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

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

THE BELGAUM MANUFACTURERS CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LTD,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

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