DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 139(1) for claiming higher rate of depreciation as provided in Appendix I to rule 5(1A), disallowed assessee

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

5. As we note, the rival parties has no dispute over the application of provisions of section 80AC(ii) of the Act which for the purpose of allowance of claim u/c VI-A of the Act mandates the filing of return with a such claim therein within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. That

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

5. As we note, the rival parties has no dispute over the application of provisions of section 80AC(ii) of the Act which for the purpose of allowance of claim u/c VI-A of the Act mandates the filing of return with a such claim therein within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. That

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

5. We note that, the appellant assessee is a society and was entitled to claim deduction in relation to its business income u/s 80P of Chapter VI-A of the Act. In terms of section 139(1) of the Act the due date of filing return of income as applicable for the appellant for the year under consideration was 31/08/2019

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

5) The CIT (appeals) has completely ignored the fact that the adjustment made by way of addition under section 36(1)(va) towards delayed contribution of employees PF and ESI was made under section 143(1) (a). Section 143(1)(a) permits addition arising only due to errors and mistakes appearing on the face of the record and doesn

SHRI BHAGYALAXMI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MALLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU

Appeals are ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 001/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Mallapur, Pg Main Rd., Ghataprabha, Karnataka-591306 Pan: Aaaas5624D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent & आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 030/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Sangam Souharda Credit Sahakari Ltd., A/P. Galgali, Taluka-Bilgi, Dist.-Bagalkot-587117 Pan: Aaeas3685G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sateesh Nadagouda For Ita No. 001& None For Ita No. 030 [‘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; These Two Appeals Of Different Assessee Are Instituted U/S 253(1) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] Against Respective Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

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

M/S SANGAM SOUHARD CREDIT SAHAKARI LIMITED,BAGALKOT vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Appeals are ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 001/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Mallapur, Pg Main Rd., Ghataprabha, Karnataka-591306 Pan: Aaaas5624D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent & आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 030/Pan/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Sangam Souharda Credit Sahakari Ltd., A/P. Galgali, Taluka-Bilgi, Dist.-Bagalkot-587117 Pan: Aaeas3685G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sateesh Nadagouda For Ita No. 001& None For Ita No. 030 [‘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; These Two Appeals Of Different Assessee Are Instituted U/S 253(1) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] Against Respective Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

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

RAJA BHAT AND KUMUDA FOUNDATION,BELAGAVI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BELAGAVI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2022-23 Raja Bhat & Kumuda Foundation Plot No. 4, Rs No1368, Kumudini, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan:Aajcr6351B . . . . . . . Appellant

disallowance u/s 40 or u/s 43B of the Act. We also see eye to eye to the proposition that, the ‘specified date’ as defined in explanation (ii) to section 44AB of the Act sets time clock for audit and is not sacrosanct because it stands erected on the borrowed shoulders of section 139(1) of the Act, which in turn

SMT ALICIA NINETTE FIALHO GONSALVES,ILHAS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.82/Pan/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Alicia Ninette Fialho Gonsalves H.No.203, Villa Gonsalves, Chimbel, Ilhas, Goa – 403 006 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Panaji Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022

139 (ii) had taken into account aforesaid payment in the computation of income in such return and (iii) had paid tax due on the income declared by it in the said return. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Panaji Goa has erred in law in not accepting the contention of the appellant that since the partnership firm M/s Buildtech

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

5. We heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same alongwith the order of the tax authorities below. The issue before us is whether any disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(i). The AO during the course of the assessment proceedings noted that the Assessee has made payment amounting to Rs. 28,87,983/- to Hongkong and Singapore

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

5. We heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same alongwith the order of the tax authorities below. The issue before us is whether any disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(i). The AO during the course of the assessment proceedings noted that the Assessee has made payment amounting to Rs. 28,87,983/- to Hongkong and Singapore

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

THE OMKAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BELAGAVI

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 84/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Omkar Urban Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd. A/P. : Kangral (Bk.), Belagavi. Pan: Aaaat3508P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

139(1) of the Act. 2.3. Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully challenged the best judgement assessment in an appeal before first appellate authority, for the reason by present appeal the assessee is before Tribunal with following grounds; 1. Because, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) denied the deduction claimed under section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, despite giving

GOA MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.63/Pan/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Goa Minerals Private Limited, The Assistant P.B.No.14, Salgaocar House, V Commissioner Of Income Dr.F.L.Gomes Road, S Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vasco Da Gama, Goa. Goa – 403802 Pan: Aaacg 6716 C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Veer Raghavan – Ar Revenue By Shri N. Shrikanth – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2023

disallowed in the then assessment for assessment year 2013-14 but was assessed as a capital expenditure and was allowed to add to capital work in progress. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the revised return under section 139(5

COMMUNIDADE OF CHICALIM,CHICALIM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.207/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) Comunidade Of Chicalim, Vs Acit Circle 2(1), Ground Floor, St Xavier Aaykar Bhavan, . Church Building, Edc, Patto, Chicalim-403802, Panjim South Goa,Goa. Goa-403001. Pan .No. Aaaabc0196P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

section 139(5) of the Act and observes that in the absence of filing a revised return within the time allowed, the claim cannot be accepted and deduction u/sec57(iv) of the Act is denied and is rejected. Finally the A.O. disallowed

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

5) The Board may, having regard to the convenience of assessees and the interests of revenue, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules specifying the cases in which, and the circumstances under which application may be made for the grant of a certificate under sub-section (3) and the conditions subject to which such certificate may be granted

REMOTE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD,ALTO BETIM vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.34 & 35/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 To 2019-20 Remote Software Solutions Vs. Assessing Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(4), Panaji. H.No.1661, Near Tarun Bharat, Alto Betim, Penha De Franca-Goa- 403521. Pan : Aadcr0144G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 16.03.2022 For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.34/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

section 139(1) of the Act. On appeal before the NFAC, the NFAC confirmed the said disallowance. 5. Being aggrieved

REMOTE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD,ALTO BETIM vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.34 & 35/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 To 2019-20 Remote Software Solutions Vs. Assessing Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(4), Panaji. H.No.1661, Near Tarun Bharat, Alto Betim, Penha De Franca-Goa- 403521. Pan : Aadcr0144G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 16.03.2022 For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.34/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

section 139(1) of the Act. On appeal before the NFAC, the NFAC confirmed the said disallowance. 5. Being aggrieved

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

139(1) of the Act amounts to sufficient compliance of the provisions in terms of section 43B of the Act, and hence not calling for any disallowance. Per contra, the Department has set up a case that the disallowance is warranted and inevitable because delayed deposit of the employees share beyond the prescribed due date under the respective