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

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 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. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT., BAGALKOT

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, WARD-1, BAGALKOT., BAGALKOT

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. 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

MUKTAR AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,VERNA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 41/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Goa Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, Sharma Shakti Bhavan, Edc Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa – 403 001 . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan:Aaacg7029G

13,15,486/-, u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payment of employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of ITA No. 47/PAN/2021 4.1 The appellant is a Private Limited Company having dealership of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., whereby they sell Mahindra & Mahindra brand vehicles in the state of Goa. ITAT-Panaji Page

GOA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 41/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Goa Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, Sharma Shakti Bhavan, Edc Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa – 403 001 . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan:Aaacg7029G

13,15,486/-, u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payment of employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of ITA No. 47/PAN/2021 4.1 The appellant is a Private Limited Company having dealership of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., whereby they sell Mahindra & Mahindra brand vehicles in the state of Goa. ITAT-Panaji Page

VEERENDRA BASAVARAJ KOUJALAGI,BELAGAVI vs. PCIT HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 103/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi C/O. Shri Laxmi Complex, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan : Agrpk3086D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1063626985(1) Dt. 29/03/2024 Passed By Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which Sought To Revise Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/04/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

section 14A of the Act, therefore there is much less subject/issue to adjudicate on merits in this case. On the other hand both the rival parties are in compelling agreement that, the revisionary action would turn bad in law if the subject matter/issue of disallowance of 14A falls outside the preview of scope of scrutiny assessment. ITAT-Panaji Page

THE BRAHMALING MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, BELGAUM

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

disallow the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) had rendered the assessment order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we herein not finding favor with the view taken