BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

disallowing so the Ld. AO treated the stamp duty payment as consideration for acquiring mining rights being a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14

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

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 employed upon or in any railway, factory or industrial or other establishment upon or in which less than one thousand persons are employed, shall be paid before expiry of the seventh

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

disallowance made by AO of a sum of Rs.81,16,257/- incurred on repair and renovation of two temples situated in mining areas by holding that they do not come under the purview of current 6 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. repairs. The whole of the addition in the sum of Rs.1

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

disallowance made by AO of a sum of Rs.81,16,257/- incurred on repair and renovation of two temples situated in mining areas by holding that they do not come under the purview of current 6 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. repairs. The whole of the addition in the sum of Rs.1

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), 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.No.344/Pan/2017 (A.Y.2013-14 ) Guala Closures(India) Vs. I T O Ward1(1), Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, D-1, Sesa Ghor, Edc, Patto, 20,Edc Complex, Panjim-403001. Patto, Goa. Panaji-403001, Goa Pan/Gir No.:Aaacg4447J Appellant .. Respondent

disallowed under Section 14A pf the Act. The Assessee argued that dividend income could not be treated as 'exempt' as the income suffered tax under Section 115-O in hands of the company distributing dividend. It was argued that DDT under Section 115-O was nothing but tax paid on behalf of the shareholder and such income which had attracted

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

14) of the Act and having enduring benefit and amortised the amount over a period of 10 years and allowed stamp duty and registration charges of mining lease to the extent of Rs.97,12,531/- for the impugned A.Y.2016-17 and balance amount of Rs.8,74,12,779/- was disallowed as capital expenditure. Similarly the A.O has made disallowance of dead

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

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

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2005-06 to submit that the payments though now claimed to be not as a consequence of a contract were in fact payments on the basis of contracts which were clearly agreements entered into by the assessee with the various contractors. It was also the submission that

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2005-06 to submit that the payments though now claimed to be not as a consequence of a contract were in fact payments on the basis of contracts which were clearly agreements entered into by the assessee with the various contractors. It was also the submission that

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2005-06 to submit that the payments though now claimed to be not as a consequence of a contract were in fact payments on the basis of contracts which were clearly agreements entered into by the assessee with the various contractors. It was also the submission that

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2005-06 to submit that the payments though now claimed to be not as a consequence of a contract were in fact payments on the basis of contracts which were clearly agreements entered into by the assessee with the various contractors. It was also the submission that

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2005-06 to submit that the payments though now claimed to be not as a consequence of a contract were in fact payments on the basis of contracts which were clearly agreements entered into by the assessee with the various contractors. It was also the submission that

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2005-06 to submit that the payments though now claimed to be not as a consequence of a contract were in fact payments on the basis of contracts which were clearly agreements entered into by the assessee with the various contractors. It was also the submission that

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT., BAGALKOT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2005-06 to submit that the payments though now claimed to be not as a consequence of a contract were in fact payments on the basis of contracts which were clearly agreements entered into by the assessee with the various contractors. It was also the submission that

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT., BAGALKOT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2005-06 to submit that the payments though now claimed to be not as a consequence of a contract were in fact payments on the basis of contracts which were clearly agreements entered into by the assessee with the various contractors. It was also the submission that

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

14 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2005-06 to submit that the payments though now claimed to be not as a consequence of a contract were in fact payments on the basis of contracts which were clearly agreements entered into by the assessee with the various contractors. It was also the submission that

VGM EXPORT,VASCO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 114/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vgm Export Suvarn Bandekar Building, Swatantra Path, Vasco, Goa Pan : Aaafv6197P . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr P B Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2025

disallowing Rs 1,14,11,643/- towards loss on balances maintained in EEFC account considering the same as notional and also capital in nature. The ld. AO and the Hon. CIT(A) have incorrectly applied the rationale on the Hon. Delhi HC in the matter of Philips Petroleum International Corp. in the current case.’ 4. During the course of hearing

GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGRAWAL (HUF),MARGAO vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Gangadhar Narsingdas Assistant Commissioner Of Agrawal (Huf) Income-Tax, Circle-1, 1St Floor, Anand Bhavan, Vs. Margao-Goa. Old Station Rod, Margao- Goa 403601 (Pan: Aabhg4804R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022 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), Panaji-1 Vide Ita No. 42/Mrg/2014-15 Dated 16.03.2018 For A.Y. 2011-12 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit, Circle-1, Margao, Goa Dated 25.03.2014. 2. Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

section 3 M/s. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal (HUF), A.Y: 2011-12 14A read with Rule 8D for which disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(i) – nil, under rule 8D(2)(ii) – Rs.5,67,749/- and under rule 8D(2)(iii) – Rs.10,46,911/-, totaling to Rs.16,14