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

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

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

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’].

13,789/-, which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently vide notice dt. 143(2) of the Act the return of the assessee subjected to scrutiny and consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by an order dt 14/03/2014 was completed wherein Ld. JCIT, Range-1, Panaji [‘Ld. AO’] made four additions owning to; (1) disallowance

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’].

13,789/-, which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently vide notice dt. 143(2) of the Act the return of the assessee subjected to scrutiny and consequential assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by an order dt 14/03/2014 was completed wherein Ld. JCIT, Range-1, Panaji [‘Ld. AO’] made four additions owning to; (1) disallowance

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 only if it is not paid by 15th December. This argument was premised on the language of section 5, which says that the wages of every person

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI , BELAGAVI vs. SHRI IDREES MOHAMMED, KALABURAGI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi, . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Idrees Mohammed Shop No. 4Cc, New Vegetable Market, Main Road, Kalaburagi, Karnataka-585101. Pan: Aajpi7572E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Ramesh Mudhol [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Sashi Saklani [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax

disallowance of agricultural income and treating ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 30 DCIT Vs Idrees Mohammed ITA No. 149/PAN/2023 AY: 2017-18 the same as Income from Other Sources without appreciating that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his agricultural income during the course of assessment proceeding and the agricultural income offered by the assessee

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.1,13,725/- under rule 3

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

section 14A(1) of the Act, but had not justified how the expenditure which the assessee had incurred during the relevant year related to the income not forming part of its total income and, had straightaway applied rule 8D, then, in the absence of proximate relationship between the expenditure and the exempt income the disallowance made by him was rightly

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

section 14A(1) of the Act, but had not justified how the expenditure which the assessee had incurred during the relevant year related to the income not forming part of its total income and, had straightaway applied rule 8D, then, in the absence of proximate relationship between the expenditure and the exempt income the disallowance made by him was rightly

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

3) of the Act. Since not all the returns pass through second mechanism but invariably passes through first mechanism, therefore the Ld. CPC rightly denied the claim while processing the return. 7. The subject matter of dispute regarding the power of LD. CPC to make disallowance was came before the co- ordinate bench in [ITA No 063/PAN/2025] ‘Allamaprabhu VUSS Niyamit

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 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

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

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

M/S KAMAT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI., PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance of interest of Rs.15,68,152/-, examined original assessment records only and no fresh material had come in his possession after completion of original assessment u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act. 6 ITA.No.336/PAN./2018 M/s. Kamat Real Estate Developers, Panaji, Goa. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred