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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI, GOA vs. BAGKIYA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, GOA

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 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Sf-3, Building No.-3. Techno Cidade, Chogam Rd., Alto Porvorim, Goa-403521. Pan: Aaccb9382M . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: None For The Respondent Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Revenue’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(2) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges The Order Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Wheeled From The Order Dt. 25/08/2021 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18.[‘Ay’]

131 of the Act, the case of the assessee by an order dt. 26/02/2021 issued u/s 127(2) of the Act was centralised and vide notice dt. 28/03/2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act the reassessment proceedings were initiated calling upon the assessee to file return in response thereto within 30 days therefrom. The assessee filed a return in response

CENTRE FOR INCUBATION AND BUSINESS ACCELERATION,VERNA vs. CENTRALIZE PROCESSING CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.152/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2024-25 ) Centre For Incubation & Vs. I T O- Exemption, Business Acceleration, Ward-1, Angel Charities, Pundalik Niwas, Angel Ashram, Panaji-403001, Verna, Salcete, Goa. Goa-403722. Pan/Gir No. Aafcc5621B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri.Mahendra Gohel.Ar Revenue By Smt. Rijula Uniyal. Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm:

131/- by disallowing the claim of exemption u/sec 11 & u/sec11(2) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO and observed that the assessee has filed the return of income claiming

M/S SADANAND BHAVAN,GOKAK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gd Padmahshalii T A. No.49/Pan/2026 (A.Y. 2013-14) M/S Sadanand Bhavan, The Income Tax Cts No. 3205 Opp. Bus Vs. Office Ward 1, Stand Road Gokak, Gokak, Karnataka -591307. Karnataka-591307. Pan .No.Aapfs8051G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

131 of the Act. The Pr.CIT has dealt on the facts and observed that the assessee has offered lower income compared to the income declared during the course of survey and since the assessee was unable to explain the source of investment and additional income declared in the hands of the assessee and hence has to be taxed u/s 115BBE

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that a witness will be first examined in chief, and then if the adverse party deems fit, cross-examined and if the party calling him so desires, be re- examined. Therefore, the corollary to the rule of fairness and justness is that statement of those witnesses referred to relied upon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that a witness will be first examined in chief, and then if the adverse party deems fit, cross-examined and if the party calling him so desires, be re- examined. Therefore, the corollary to the rule of fairness and justness is that statement of those witnesses referred to relied upon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that a witness will be first examined in chief, and then if the adverse party deems fit, cross-examined and if the party calling him so desires, be re- examined. Therefore, the corollary to the rule of fairness and justness is that statement of those witnesses referred to relied upon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that a witness will be first examined in chief, and then if the adverse party deems fit, cross-examined and if the party calling him so desires, be re- examined. Therefore, the corollary to the rule of fairness and justness is that statement of those witnesses referred to relied upon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that a witness will be first examined in chief, and then if the adverse party deems fit, cross-examined and if the party calling him so desires, be re- examined. Therefore, the corollary to the rule of fairness and justness is that statement of those witnesses referred to relied upon

SHRI LALJI PURSHOTTAM DABHOYYA PATEL,ALTINHO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of Rs.9,90,009/- was imposed. In appeal, the learned CIT(A), Panaji, sustained the additions made as well as the penalty imposed by the AO. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on various decisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI vs. SHRI LALJI PURUSHOTTAM BABHOYYA PATEL, ALTINHO

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of Rs.9,90,009/- was imposed. In appeal, the learned CIT(A), Panaji, sustained the additions made as well as the penalty imposed by the AO. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on various decisions

THE HIND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), BELAGAVI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 038/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hind Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., 131, Hindwadi, Belgaum, Karnataka-590011 Pan: Aacat4514B . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Belgaum . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Against The Impugned Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048023500(1) Dt. 15/12/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter] The Present Appeal Is Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

131, Hindwadi, Belgaum, Karnataka-590011 PAN: AACAT4514B . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Belgaum . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; Against