SHRI NITIN A SHIRGURKAR,BELGAVI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

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

disallow a sum of Rs.30,086/- i.e. 1,00,288 X 30%= Rs.30,086/ i.e. 1,00,288 X 30%= Rs.30,086/- as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which has not been provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which has not been done. 3. On perusal of records, the following observations have

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) of the Act, which allowed the assessee to extract iron ore minerals and generate a circulating capital in the form of ‘stock-in-trade’ and consequential revenue realisation on sale in ordinary course

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 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, the investment made in shares of Sesa Goa Ltd., as is evident from the audited books of account is out of surplus money only and no borrowed funds were utilized. The assessee-company purchased 3,38,03,812 equity shares of M/s. Sesa

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 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, the investment made in shares of Sesa Goa Ltd., as is evident from the audited books of account is out of surplus money only and no borrowed funds were utilized. The assessee-company purchased 3,38,03,812 equity shares of M/s. Sesa

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

14,88,870/- by holding that there was no exempted income and as such disallowance could not have been made even though said provision was rightly invoked by AO, and as such setting aside the disallowance is erroneous. Hence, he prays for substantial question of law as formulated in the appeal memorandum (ITA 170/2019) be formulated, adjudicated and answered

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

14,88,870/- by holding that there was no exempted income and as such disallowance could not have been made even though said provision was rightly invoked by AO, and as such setting aside the disallowance is erroneous. Hence, he prays for substantial question of law as formulated in the appeal memorandum (ITA 170/2019) be formulated, adjudicated and answered

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

3) of the Act are barred by limitation. In the event, irrespective of length of delay their admission in view s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act is subject to establishing satisfactorily ‘sufficient cause’ behind such occurrence of delay on record in first place. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 32 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Vs JCIT/ACIT ITA Nos.034 & 035/PAN/2025

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

3) of the Act are barred by limitation. In the event, irrespective of length of delay their admission in view s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act is subject to establishing satisfactorily ‘sufficient cause’ behind such occurrence of delay on record in first place. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 32 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Vs JCIT/ACIT ITA Nos.034 & 035/PAN/2025

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)

section 3 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye and Bros. 135 of the companies Act2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred for the purpose of business and also the assessee has not proved that they are incurred /incidental to the business of the assessee and made disallowance of Rs.8,66,910/- (ii)the second disputed issue that the assessee

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

3. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities action invoking sec.36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B disallowance representing employees contribution to the tune of Rs.53,30,556/- which had not been deposited before the due date under the corresponding statute

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

14. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all the grounds of appeal urged above. 15. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.” 3. Briefly, the facts of the case

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI , BELAGAVI vs. SHRI IDREES MOHAMMED, KALABURAGI

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 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi, . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Idrees Mohammed Shop No. 4Cc, New Vegetable Market, Main Road, Kalaburagi, Karnataka-585101. Pan: Aajpi7572E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Ramesh Mudhol [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Sashi Saklani [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax

disallowance of agricultural income and treating ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 30 DCIT Vs Idrees Mohammed ITA No. 149/PAN/2023 AY: 2017-18 the same as Income from Other Sources without appreciating that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his agricultural income during the course of assessment proceeding and the agricultural income offered by the assessee

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

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

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

INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,DONA PAULA vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

3,14,334/- poles 10,89,334/- 10,89,334/- However, the A.O being of the view that the aforesaid payments were in the nature of donations to temple/panchayat had disallowed the same, for the reason that they were not eligible for deduction u/s.80G of the Act. 16. In our considered view, as observed by the CIT(Appeals), and rightly

ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., DONA PAULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

3,14,334/- poles 10,89,334/- 10,89,334/- However, the A.O being of the view that the aforesaid payments were in the nature of donations to temple/panchayat had disallowed the same, for the reason that they were not eligible for deduction u/s.80G of the Act. 16. In our considered view, as observed by the CIT(Appeals), and rightly