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 in setting aside the issue of TDS on subcontract payments subcontract payments evidenced by Tax Audit Report and verified evidenced by Tax Audit Report and verified by A.O in assessment proceedings. by A.O in assessment proceedings. 11

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

11,60,784/- confirmed by CIT(A) on the basis of conjecture and surmises be deleted in full. 3. (a) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO under section

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

11,60,784/- confirmed by CIT(A) on the basis of conjecture and surmises be deleted in full. 3. (a) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO under section

MINERAL FOUNDATION OF GOA,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3. In relation to this disallowance u/s 11(1)(a) the observation of the Ld. AO is as follows: “6. Deduction claimed U/s. 11(1)(a): As per the provisions of Section

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

11 DCIT v. Nirani Sugars Ltd. sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Income-tax Act makes it clear that the depreciation at a prescribed rate on the asset as specified in clause (i) would be on actual cost instead of written down value (WDV). Further Explanation 5 to sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Income

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

disallowing the deduction. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 11 Allamaprabhu VUSS Niyamit Kalloli Vs ITO, Gokak ITA Nos.063/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 of law and judicial precedents

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

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

3. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities action invoking sec.36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B disallowance representing employees contribution to the tune of Rs.53,30,556/- which had not been deposited before the due date under the corresponding statute

M/S AHILIABAI SARDESSAI,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 378 & 379/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S. Ahilibai Sardessai 301, Lotus Court, M.G. Road, St. Inez Junction, Panaji-Goa-403 001 Pan : Aagfa9044G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji-Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri D.E. Robinson, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :22.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022

3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the assessment order before the CIT(Appeals). During the course of the appellate proceedings, the assessee, inter alia, assailed the validity of the disallowance that was worked out by the Assessing Officer u/s.14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(iii) on the ground that the Assessing Officer had failed to record his satisfaction

M/S AHILIABAI SARDESSAI,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 378 & 379/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S. Ahilibai Sardessai 301, Lotus Court, M.G. Road, St. Inez Junction, Panaji-Goa-403 001 Pan : Aagfa9044G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji-Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri D.E. Robinson, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :22.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022

3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the assessment order before the CIT(Appeals). During the course of the appellate proceedings, the assessee, inter alia, assailed the validity of the disallowance that was worked out by the Assessing Officer u/s.14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(iii) on the ground that the Assessing Officer had failed to record his satisfaction

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI vs. M/S MILROC GOOD EARTH PROPERTY AND DEVELOPERS LLP, PANAJI

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee in CO No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 26/Pan/2018 ""या"ेपसं./Co.No.06/Pan/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.26/Pan/2018) "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Milroc Good Earth Property & Developers Llp, 501, 5Th Floor Milroc Lar Menezes, S.V. Road, Panaji-Goa - 403001 Pan : Aaacg7222M ……""यथ" / Respondent

3 raised by the revenue before us. 9. We shall now advert to the claim of the revenue that the CIT(Appeals) had erred in not sustaining the alternative disallowance of Rs.1,11,30,410/-(supra) on account of interest-bearing funds that were diverted by the assessee to its associates/sister concerns/partners at a lower rate of interest. 10. Shorn

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

disallowance is only in context of Residents [u/s 40a(ia)]. Further this benefit of proviso to section 201(1) is available subject to furnishing by the deductor a certificate from the accountant in Form 26. No such certificate was filed either before the AO or during the course of the appellate proceedings. Jurisdictional Tribunal in case of Intel Tech India

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

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

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

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)

3 to section 32(1) is pari-materia of section 2(11) to cover both tangible and intangible assets for depreciation. 37. Section 32 of the Act on the other hand, allows a deduction for depreciation on tangible (buildings, furniture & fixture and Plant & machinery) as well as on intangible assets (know-how, patents, copyrights, licenses, franchises) owned and used

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

3 to section 32(1) is pari-materia of section 2(11) to cover both tangible and intangible assets for depreciation. ITAT-Panaji Page 37 of 39 M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 038/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 37. Section 32 of the Act on the other hand, allows a deduction for depreciation on tangible (buildings, furniture & fixture