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

3 of 2010 dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the CBDT in respect of loss on account of foreign exchange derivatives is subsequent to the Apex Court's decision in Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra) and was not considered by the Tribunal. This instruction according to the Revenue would govern the issue. 6.In the present facts, we find that

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

3 of 2010 dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the CBDT in respect of loss on account of foreign exchange derivatives is subsequent to the Apex Court's decision in Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra) and was not considered by the Tribunal. This instruction according to the Revenue would govern the issue. 6.In the present facts, we find that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI, GOA vs. BAGKIYA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, GOA

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 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Sf-3, Building No.-3. Techno Cidade, Chogam Rd., Alto Porvorim, Goa-403521. Pan: Aaccb9382M . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: None For The Respondent Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Revenue’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(2) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges The Order Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Wheeled From The Order Dt. 25/08/2021 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18.[‘Ay’]

145(3) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 39 ACIT Vs M/s Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 148/PAN/2025 AY: 2017-18 9. In view of forestated facts, the action of the Ld. AO in not accepting the audited financial results and thus the income from business returned by the respondent assessee finds merits without any error

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI vs. M/S MILROC GOOD EARTH PROPERTY AND DEVELOPERS LLP, PANAJI

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee in CO No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 26/Pan/2018 ""या"ेपसं./Co.No.06/Pan/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.26/Pan/2018) "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Milroc Good Earth Property & Developers Llp, 501, 5Th Floor Milroc Lar Menezes, S.V. Road, Panaji-Goa - 403001 Pan : Aaacg7222M ……""यथ" / Respondent

3) of the Act and no additions have been made in the WIP, which is not controverted by the learned Departmental Representative and rather conceded by ld DR. We have further observed that as per Accounting Standard AS-2 relating to the inventories issued by ICAI , it has been stipulated in Accounting Standard AS-2 that interest cost will

M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (SALT) PVT. LTD,MORMUGAO vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 390/Pan/2017 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S Chowgule & Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd., Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa – 403803. Pan: Aabcc 5595 J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Ms Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull Am; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Panaji-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 09/10/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Tousled Out Of Order Of Assessment Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-2, Margoa [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 27/07/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 23

3)(iii) B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, thus the facts under consideration are dissimilar and distinguishable, hence the decision relied upon is of no help to the assessee. The assessee further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in “CIT Vs Agrawal Transformers Pvt. Ltd.” reported at 258 ITR 251, however it would again

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PATTO PLAZA vs. ESTEEM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowance of capital expenditure of ₹1,94,57,703/- relating to technical know-how. Aggrieved by the first addition, the assessee filed an appeal which the Ld. NFAC allowed by reversing the alleged addition. Aggrieved thereby the Revenue came in this second appeal seeking to overturn former deletion. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 20 DCIT Vs Esteem Industries

M/S ADITI SCANS PVT. LTD,BIJAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, BIJAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am M/S Aditi Scans Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-1, Bijapur Shiva Kunja Chalukya Nagar (East) Solapur Road, Vijaypur, Vijaypur Pan No.Aagca 7255 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prasanth G.S., Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Prabhat Jha, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2021 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Gulbarga, Dated 29.11.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009- 2010, On The Following Grounds :- The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) In So Far As It Is Against The 1. Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed On A Total Loss 2. Of Rs. 15,76,829/- As Against The Lossof Rs.75,46,930/- Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Authorities Below Erred In Treating The Share Capital Of Rs. 3. 13,75,000/- As Unexplained Money Under Section 68 Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Order Of The Authorities Below Is Bad In Law As The Amount 4. Of Rs. 13,75,000/- Cannot Be Brought To Tax In The Hands Of The Appellant As The Mandatory Conditions To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act Have Not Been Satisfied Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

disallowed the amounts without application of mind which is opposed to the settled principles of natural justice and thus the order needs to be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute 10. any of the grounds urged above. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at 11. the time

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

section 43AA nor ICDS-VI can be made applicable to the present case. The sole dispute hinges around nature of forex fluctuation loss as to ‘notional or real’ & ‘capital or revenue’. The Revenue setup it’s disallowance on twofold reasoning viz; (a) the forex fluctuation loss is notional in nature and (b) since it relates to cash equivalents, hence capital