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

disallowance, deduction, etc., it is incumbent upon the Commissioner not to exercise his suomotu revisional incumbent upon the Commissioner not to exercise his suomotu revisional incumbent upon the Commissioner not to exercise his suomotu revisional powers unless supported by adequate reasons for doing so; that if a query is nless supported by adequate reasons for doing so; that

M/S SIDDHARTH NATURAL FOOD RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,KUNDAIM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.187/Pan/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Siddharth Natural Food Resources Private Limited, Plot No.83, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Panaji- 403001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aalcs5815K बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Panaji. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021 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)-1, Panaji (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Is Void-Ab-Initio. 2) The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. 3) The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.3,35,25,800/- Made By The Ao, Whereas The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80Ib Was Only Rs.50,00,194/-. 4) The Ld Ao Has Erred In Disallowing The Profit As Per Profit & Loss Account Of Rs.3,35,25,800/- Whereas The Profit As Per The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Only Rs.50,00,194/- Which Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80Ib In The Return Of Income Filled By The Assessee. Hence The Maximum Addition By Way Of Disallowance Of Assessee Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ib Can Be Only Rs.50,00,194/-.

116 TTJ 658 rendered in the context of provisions of section 80-I and section 80HHA of the Act held 3 that the term “processing” does not include production. Accordingly, he denied the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before

M/S GOA NATURAL FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,KUNDAIM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.188/Pan/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Goa Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.37 & 38, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Panaji- 403001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaccg7564Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Panaji. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2021 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)-1, Panaji (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Is Void-Ab-Initio. 2) The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. 3) The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.2,77,54,053/- Made By The Ao, Whereas The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80Ib Was Only Rs.1,64,18,999/-. 4) The Ld Ao Has Erred In Disallowing The Profit As Per Profit & Loss Account Of Rs.2,77,54,053/- Whereas The Profit As Per The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Only Rs.1,64,18,999/- Which Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80Ib In The Return Of Income Filled By The Assessee. Hence The Maximum Addition By Way Of Disallowance Of Assessee Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ib Can Be Only Rs.1,64,18,999/-.

116 TTJ 658 rendered in the context of provisions of section 80-I and section 80HHA of the Act held 3 that the term “processing” does not include production. Accordingly, he denied the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before

SURAJDATTA SAGUN MORAJKAR,NERUL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI GOA, PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Surajdatta Sagun Morajkar C/O. Sun Estate Developers, Next To Sal De Goa, Bhatti Waddo, Bardez, Goa-403114 Pan : Aempm7614J . . . . . . . Appellant

section 5A of the Act was for the year under consideration engaged in the business of real estate development and construction in the name & style of ‘Sun Estate Developer’ and also a partner in M/s ‘SM Venture.’ The assessee filed his return of income on 30/03/2018 declaring total income at ₹4,47,72,090/- which was subjected to scrutiny

VGM EXPORT,VASCO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 114/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vgm Export Suvarn Bandekar Building, Swatantra Path, Vasco, Goa Pan : Aaafv6197P . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr P B Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2025

section 43AA nor ICDS-VI can be made applicable to the present case. The sole dispute hinges around nature of forex fluctuation loss as to ‘notional or real’ & ‘capital or revenue’. The Revenue setup it’s disallowance on twofold reasoning viz; (a) the forex fluctuation loss is notional in nature and (b) since it relates to cash equivalents, hence capital

THE MARCEL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MARCEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

disallowance, we deem it necessary to reiterate certain key factual matrix of the case here viz; (1) the appellant is a registered society under State Co-op Societies Act (2) the appellant is a Co-operative Society within the meaning of section 2(19) of the Act (3) the appellant is engaged in providing credit facilities to its member

SHRI GOPALKRISHNA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

disallowance, we deem it necessary to reiterate certain key factual matrix of the case here viz; (1) the appellant is a registered society under State Co-op Societies Act (2) the appellant is a Co-operative Society within the meaning of section 2(19) of the Act (3) the appellant is engaged in providing credit facilities to its member

SHRI GOPALKRISHNA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

disallowance, we deem it necessary to reiterate certain key factual matrix of the case here viz; (1) the appellant is a registered society under State Co-op Societies Act (2) the appellant is a Co-operative Society within the meaning of section 2(19) of the Act (3) the appellant is engaged in providing credit facilities to its member

PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BEDKIHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

disallowance, we deem it necessary to reiterate certain key factual matrix of the case here viz; (1) the appellant is a registered society under State Co-op Societies Act (2) the appellant is a Co-operative Society within the meaning of section 2(19) of the Act (3) the appellant is engaged in providing credit facilities to its member