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

disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139; or 9

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or 9

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

9. In the instant case, admittedly, in the return was filed on behalf- of assessee, within the extended period of time provided under Section 139(4) of the Act, and the assessee has claimed depreciation. Thus, the benefit of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) would endure

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

section 9." 6. It is an undisputed fact that the Finance Act, 2010 received the assent of the President on 8.5.2010 and all the payments have been made by the Assessee to the non-resident party prior to receiving of assent of the President making the retrospective amendment by adding explanation to Sec. 9(1). At the time when

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

section 9." 6. It is an undisputed fact that the Finance Act, 2010 received the assent of the President on 8.5.2010 and all the payments have been made by the Assessee to the non-resident party prior to receiving of assent of the President making the retrospective amendment by adding explanation to Sec. 9(1). At the time when

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

139; or ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 11 Allamaprabhu VUSS Niyamit Kalloli Vs ITO, Gokak ITA Nos.063/PAN/2025 AY: 2018-19 9. The bare reading of substituted provisions clearly suggest that, the jurisdiction of Ld. CPC s/c (v) of clause (a) of s/s (1) of section 143 of the Act to deny or disallow

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

9 of 16 Raja Bhat & Kumuda Foundation Vs ITO ITA No.0270/PAN/2024 AY:2022-23 12. The procedural lapse on the part of appellant in law is not terminal but curable by condonation if it is proved to the satisfaction that for sufficient reasons the appellant could not file the same within the prescribed time. Insofar as the condonation of delay

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

139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely :— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance of expenditure

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

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

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

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

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

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].

disallow 80P deduction in summary assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 7 ITA No.001 & 030/PUN/2023 AY 2018-19 Belated Return-143(1)(a)(v) 8. Let us deal with issue of eligibility of the claim of deduction u/s 80P of VI-A of the Act first; it goes without saying that, by virtue

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].

disallow 80P deduction in summary assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 7 ITA No.001 & 030/PUN/2023 AY 2018-19 Belated Return-143(1)(a)(v) 8. Let us deal with issue of eligibility of the claim of deduction u/s 80P of VI-A of the Act first; it goes without saying that, by virtue

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

9. The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that there shall be No liability to deduct Tax at Source as per Article 26 on ‘Non Discrimination’ of DTAA between India 8t United Kingdom, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Without prejudice the learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the proviso to section

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

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, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue relates to the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.40,29,887/- made

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, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue relates to the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.40,29,887/- made

SHRI K.P. MAGENNAVAR LAXMI CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.MANJARI.,CHIKODI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIPPANI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.33/Pan/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri K.P.Magennavar Laxmi Vs I.T.O-Ward-1, Credit Souharda Sahakari Nemchand Building, . Sangh Limited, 747,Ashoknagar, 521,Laxmibuilding,Mainroad, Nipani-591237, Manjari, Chikodi, Karnataka. Belagavi-591213, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aabas3175N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Jaykumar Patil.Ar Revenue By Smt.Thamba Mahendra.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit(A)-7 Mumbai Passed U/Se 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/Sec80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Ac & Without Prejudice Alternate Relief U/Sec80P(2)(D) Of The Act On Interest Income From Cooperative Banks & Scheduled Banks. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Souhard Credit Cooperative Society Is Engaged In Providing

139/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 31.08.2017. 3. Aggrieved by the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the A.O but sustained the denial of claim