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

13. The ld. AR referred to section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to contend that deduction made from an employee’s salary for the month of October should suffer disallowance

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

13,34,020/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 19.05.2011. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) dated 24.08.2011 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee’s Authorised Representative appeared before the A.O. and filed

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

13,34,020/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 19.05.2011. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) dated 24.08.2011 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee’s Authorised Representative appeared before the A.O. and filed

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

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

MRS VINI P. KENI,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 112/Pan/2022 (A.Y. 2014-15 ) Vini Prasad Keni, Vs Ito-Ward-1(3), Keni Building, Aayakar Bhavan, . Dr.Dada Vaidhya Road, Panaji-403001, Panjim-403001, Goa. Goa. . Pan .No. Adppk9767N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.E.Robinson.Ar Revenue By Sri Narender Reddy.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/ Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised

13 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised 2 ITA. No. 112/PAN/2022 Vini.Prasad Keni. the grounds

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 as amended by the Finance Act, 2018 mandated that even for claiming deduction claimed u/s 80P, the return of income was to be filed before the due date as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. However, for the Ld. CPC to insist upon the compliance by way of making a disallowance owning to filing the return belated

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

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

M/S. KINECO (P) LTD.,BARDEZ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Kineco (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 60, Pilerne Industrial 2(4), Panaji. Vs. Estate, Pilerne, Bardez Goa- 403511. (Pan: Aabcm8681P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 418/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 01.06.2018 For A.Y. 2013-14 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-2(4), Panaji Dated 22.03.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

section 14A of the Act is not applicable since it has not earned any exempt income during the year. Ld. AO rejecting the contention of the assessee proceeded to compute the disallowance by applying rule 8D and thus made a disallowance of Rs.28,94,090/- under rule 8D(2)(ii) and of Rs.1,13

M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (SALT) PVT. LTD,MORMUGAO vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 390/Pan/2017 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S Chowgule & Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd., Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa – 403803. Pan: Aabcc 5595 J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Ms Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull Am; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Panaji-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 09/10/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Tousled Out Of Order Of Assessment Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-2, Margoa [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 27/07/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 23

disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules and to do so, it necessitates the reproduction of relevant provision of law as; 11.1 Section 14A Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income (1) For the purposes of computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

13) The Id. AO(TP) has erred in applying Transactional Net Margin Method instead of Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method without any substantial justification. 14) The Id. AO(TP) has erred in applying the TNMM of companies which are no were similar to the business of the assesse w.r.t. type of business, turnover, assets base, business size, geographical area, sector

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

13) The Id. AO(TP) has erred in applying Transactional Net Margin Method instead of Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method without any substantial justification. 14) The Id. AO(TP) has erred in applying the TNMM of companies which are no were similar to the business of the assesse w.r.t. type of business, turnover, assets base, business size, geographical area, sector

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

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

13 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka matter is remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh to decide the issues on the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise

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

13 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka matter is remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh to decide the issues on the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise

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

13 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka matter is remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh to decide the issues on the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise

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

13 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka matter is remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh to decide the issues on the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise

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

13 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka matter is remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh to decide the issues on the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise

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

13 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka matter is remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh to decide the issues on the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise

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

13 ITA.Nos.152 to 161/PAN./2015 Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur Bagalkot Tq Karnataka matter is remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh to decide the issues on the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise