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

9 ITA.No.1/PAN./2022 by means of indication in the audit report. Both the limbs are independent of each other. The indication in the audit report for `Increase of income’ should be qua some item of income and not increase of income because of the `disallowance of expenditure’. Every disallowance of expenditure leads to increase of income. If the contention

PRIME MINERAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH FOMENTO RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED),PANAJI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 003/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) 102, 1St Fl. Kamat Metropolis-1, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa-403001. . . . . . . .Appellant Pan : Aadcp1647E V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . Respondent Range-1, Panaji, Goa

9 of 42 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd.(Now Amalgamated with Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) Vs JCIT, Panaji ITA Nos.003/PAN/2023 AY: 2009-10 expenditure to be disallowed in relation to such exempt income earned. 5.6 In the present case, having regard to appellant’s huge investments, at the very outset the Ld. AO clearly noted his dis-satisfaction

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

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

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

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

9 of 12 Priyadarshani Mahila Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs DCIT, CPC ITA Nos.032/PAN/2025 AY: 2019-20 makes a mention of Section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the head ‘C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes’. Accordingly, the enabling provisions to address the amendment in Section 80-AC(ii) by Finance

NAVANIRMAN MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BELAGAVI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 116/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navanirman Multipurpose Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Laxmi Nagar, Hindalaga, Dist. Belagavi.-591108 Pan : Aacan0420G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; By Captioned Appeal The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1074658686(1) Dt. 18/03/2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 15/02/2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By National Faceless E- Asstt Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

disallowance made by the Revenue for belated filing of return was vacated in view of the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case ‘Chirakkal Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs CIT’ [2016, 68 taxmann.com 298 (Ker)]. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR Uniyal sought our attention to para 5 of the Ld. Co-ordinate bench’s decision

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

9. During the virtual hearing, the Ld. AR at the outset adverting to the written submission and additional evidence laid u/r 29 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short “Rules”] in sum and substance contended that, the tax authorities below were entranced by the pro- revenue judicial precedents and ignoring the submission laid before them, have carried

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

BELLAD BAGEWADI KRISHI SEVA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,HUKKERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GOKAK

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshalistay Application Nos.01, 02 & 03/Pan./2023 Arising Out Of Ita.Nos.11, 89 & 116/Pan./2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 Along With Ita.Nos.11, 89 & 116/Pan./2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 & Ita.Nos. 05 & 06/Pan./2020 Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 Bellad Bagewadi Krishi Seva The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Sangh Bellad Ward-1, Bagewadi, Taluka Hukkeri, Dr. Ghogeri Building, Dist. Belagavi – 591 305 Vs. Belgaum Road, State Of Karnataka. Gokak – 591 307. Pan Aaaat0640C State Of Karnataka (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shivanand Halbhavi For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2023 Order

disallowing the claim of the 9 ITA.Nos.11, 89 & 116/PAN./2022 S.A.Nos.01, 02 & 03/PAN./2023 & ITA.Nos.05 & 06/PAN./2020 appellant U/s. 80P(2)(d). Alternatively, since the said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of the appellant society, the same qualifies for deduction U/s. 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Income

BELLAD BAGEWADI KRISHI SEVA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshalistay Application Nos.01, 02 & 03/Pan./2023 Arising Out Of Ita.Nos.11, 89 & 116/Pan./2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 Along With Ita.Nos.11, 89 & 116/Pan./2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 & Ita.Nos. 05 & 06/Pan./2020 Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 Bellad Bagewadi Krishi Seva The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Sangh Bellad Ward-1, Bagewadi, Taluka Hukkeri, Dr. Ghogeri Building, Dist. Belagavi – 591 305 Vs. Belgaum Road, State Of Karnataka. Gokak – 591 307. Pan Aaaat0640C State Of Karnataka (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shivanand Halbhavi For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2023 Order

disallowing the claim of the 9 ITA.Nos.11, 89 & 116/PAN./2022 S.A.Nos.01, 02 & 03/PAN./2023 & ITA.Nos.05 & 06/PAN./2020 appellant U/s. 80P(2)(d). Alternatively, since the said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of the appellant society, the same qualifies for deduction U/s. 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Income

BELLAD BAGEWADI KRISHI SEVA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,HUKKERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GOKAK

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshalistay Application Nos.01, 02 & 03/Pan./2023 Arising Out Of Ita.Nos.11, 89 & 116/Pan./2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 Along With Ita.Nos.11, 89 & 116/Pan./2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 & Ita.Nos. 05 & 06/Pan./2020 Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 Bellad Bagewadi Krishi Seva The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Sangh Bellad Ward-1, Bagewadi, Taluka Hukkeri, Dr. Ghogeri Building, Dist. Belagavi – 591 305 Vs. Belgaum Road, State Of Karnataka. Gokak – 591 307. Pan Aaaat0640C State Of Karnataka (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shivanand Halbhavi For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2023 Order

disallowing the claim of the 9 ITA.Nos.11, 89 & 116/PAN./2022 S.A.Nos.01, 02 & 03/PAN./2023 & ITA.Nos.05 & 06/PAN./2020 appellant U/s. 80P(2)(d). Alternatively, since the said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of the appellant society, the same qualifies for deduction U/s. 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Income

BELLAD BAGEWADI KRISHI SEVA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,HUKKERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GOKAK

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshalistay Application Nos.01, 02 & 03/Pan./2023 Arising Out Of Ita.Nos.11, 89 & 116/Pan./2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 Along With Ita.Nos.11, 89 & 116/Pan./2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 & Ita.Nos. 05 & 06/Pan./2020 Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 Bellad Bagewadi Krishi Seva The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Sangh Bellad Ward-1, Bagewadi, Taluka Hukkeri, Dr. Ghogeri Building, Dist. Belagavi – 591 305 Vs. Belgaum Road, State Of Karnataka. Gokak – 591 307. Pan Aaaat0640C State Of Karnataka (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shivanand Halbhavi For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2023 Order

disallowing the claim of the 9 ITA.Nos.11, 89 & 116/PAN./2022 S.A.Nos.01, 02 & 03/PAN./2023 & ITA.Nos.05 & 06/PAN./2020 appellant U/s. 80P(2)(d). Alternatively, since the said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of the appellant society, the same qualifies for deduction U/s. 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Income

BELLAD BAGEWADI KRISHI SEVA SAHAKARI SSANGH NIYAMIT,HUKKERI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshalistay Application Nos.01, 02 & 03/Pan./2023 Arising Out Of Ita.Nos.11, 89 & 116/Pan./2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 Along With Ita.Nos.11, 89 & 116/Pan./2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 & Ita.Nos. 05 & 06/Pan./2020 Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 Bellad Bagewadi Krishi Seva The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Sangh Bellad Ward-1, Bagewadi, Taluka Hukkeri, Dr. Ghogeri Building, Dist. Belagavi – 591 305 Vs. Belgaum Road, State Of Karnataka. Gokak – 591 307. Pan Aaaat0640C State Of Karnataka (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shivanand Halbhavi For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2023 Order

disallowing the claim of the 9 ITA.Nos.11, 89 & 116/PAN./2022 S.A.Nos.01, 02 & 03/PAN./2023 & ITA.Nos.05 & 06/PAN./2020 appellant U/s. 80P(2)(d). Alternatively, since the said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of the appellant society, the same qualifies for deduction U/s. 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Income

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.

13,725/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules is ought to be deleted. 6. To buttress his contentions, Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of PCIT Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. in ITA No. 51 of 2016 dated 13.10.2016 wherein it was held that when

SHRI DEEPAK GURUNATH GOJAGEKAR,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BELAGAVI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

13, which reads as under :- 9. The assessment order passed by the respondent contains material contradiction in the form of contradicting opinions. 10. The amount of Rs.51,00,000/- is declared by the appellant with sufficient explanation as Income from Other Sources. 11. No reason whatsoever is given by the respondent for rejecting the sufficient explanation provided by the appellant

SHRI DEEPAK GURUNATH GOJAGEKAR,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BELAGAVI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

13, which reads as under :- 9. The assessment order passed by the respondent contains material contradiction in the form of contradicting opinions. 10. The amount of Rs.51,00,000/- is declared by the appellant with sufficient explanation as Income from Other Sources. 11. No reason whatsoever is given by the respondent for rejecting the sufficient explanation provided by the appellant

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