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

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

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

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

SCORPIO IRON LTD,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance made by the AO under section 14A r/w section 8(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules for a sum of Rs. 14

SHREE AMBEY FORGING PRIVAT LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - (4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance made by the AO under section 14A r/w section 8(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules for a sum of Rs. 14

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), PANAJI., PANAJI vs. M/S ALCON RESORT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., PANAJI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S Alcon Resort Holdings Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Alcon Chambers, Edc Complex, Patto Plaza, Vs. D.B. Road, Panaji, Panaji Goa Pan: Aabca6880E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Y.V. Raviraj (Dr) Assessee By : Shri M.C. Naniwadekar (Advocate) Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2019

disallowance u/s 14A amounting to Rs. 38,21,533/- and Assessment Year: 2013-14 determined the total income at Rs. (-) 1,64,61,706/- under the normal provision of the Act and Rs. 4,14,85,100/- under section

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. 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. 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