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

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

b) Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

144(C) of the Income Tax Act'1961 is without jurisdiction, misconceived and without following the principles of natural justice. 3) The Id. AO has erred in making adjustment / addition of Rs.9,73,68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

144(C) of the Income Tax Act'1961 is without jurisdiction, misconceived and without following the principles of natural justice. 3) The Id. AO has erred in making adjustment / addition of Rs.9,73,68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse

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

144(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 5. Because, the Assessing Officer made additions wrongly under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, for cash credits based on deposits in bank, without going through the books of accounts maintained by the Appellant 6. Because, the Assessing Officer has wrongly disallowed

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

SADASHIV B DALAWAI,RAIBAG vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 307/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sadashiv B Dalawai At Post Shiragur Tal.: Raibag, Dist. Belgaum Pan : Bdrpd7066A . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer/Itd, Belgaum/New Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mrs Viramma Muranal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/10703226271(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 21/09/2022 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21[‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

1,50,000/- made respectively u/s 80G and 80C u/c VI-A of the Act remained unsubstantiated by the assessee, the said claims were also treated as bogus and thus disallowed while framing the assessment to the best of judgement u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee assailed the aforestated addition & disallowances in appeal before the Ld. NFAC, which

PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BEDKIHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

disallowance, we deem it necessary to reiterate certain key factual matrix of the case here viz; (1) the appellant is a registered society under State Co-op Societies Act (2) the appellant is a Co-operative Society within the meaning of section 2(19) of the Act (3) the appellant is engaged in providing credit facilities to its member

SHRI GOPALKRISHNA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

disallowance, we deem it necessary to reiterate certain key factual matrix of the case here viz; (1) the appellant is a registered society under State Co-op Societies Act (2) the appellant is a Co-operative Society within the meaning of section 2(19) of the Act (3) the appellant is engaged in providing credit facilities to its member

SHRI GOPALKRISHNA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

disallowance, we deem it necessary to reiterate certain key factual matrix of the case here viz; (1) the appellant is a registered society under State Co-op Societies Act (2) the appellant is a Co-operative Society within the meaning of section 2(19) of the Act (3) the appellant is engaged in providing credit facilities to its member

THE MARCEL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MARCEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

disallowance, we deem it necessary to reiterate certain key factual matrix of the case here viz; (1) the appellant is a registered society under State Co-op Societies Act (2) the appellant is a Co-operative Society within the meaning of section 2(19) of the Act (3) the appellant is engaged in providing credit facilities to its member

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

b) if the resident of UK is the beneficial owner of the dividend in all cases other than the case falling under Article 11(2)(a) where dividend is being paid out of income derived directly or indirectly from immovable properties, subject to such income from immovable property being exempt from tax. Article 11 therefore, restricts the right of India