M/S NAVRATNA JEWELLERS & CO.,GOKAK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, GOKAK

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

1] ORDER IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE [A] That the Order of the Learned Commissioner [Appeals] confirming additions made by A.O. in rectification Order U/S 154 is against Law and facts of the case, because DEBATABLE and ARGUABLE Issues are outside the jurisdiction of Section 154. Hence, Order requires to be quashed. 2] DISALLOWANCE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi M/S. Manipal Technologies Limited, Vs. Udayavani Building, Manipal- 576104. Pan: Aabcm 9516 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Department Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangaluru In Appeal No. Ita No. 10030/Udp/Cit(A)Mng/2016-17 Dated 27.11.2017 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle- 1, Udupi Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2016. 2. There Are Six Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Department In The Present Appeal, All Of Which Relate To The Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The Act R.W.R. 8D(2)(Ii) & 8D(2)(Iii) Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Rules), Amounting To Rs. 1,61,65,201/-.

1,47,89,917/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the rules in the impugned year for which the reason for such change in the stand by the AO are not discernible from the impugned assessment order of the ld. AO. Considering this observations and facts and relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2006-2007 M/S Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. Salgaonkar Bhava, Altino, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aabcs8862N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Impugns The Order Dt. 20/03/2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Dealt With Order Dt. 20/12/2011 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2006-07.[‘Ay’]

154 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 16 M/s Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA No. 132/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 2.3 Vide notice dt. 14/03/2011 issued u/s 148 of the Act the case of the assessee after recording the reasons reopened u/147 of the Act to reassess the income escaped the assessment. For the non- compliance

JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

154 of the Act, in my opinion is not justified. Further, admittedly, there is no mistake apparent from the record in the case of assessee to rectify the total income determined by the AO u/s. 143(1) of the Act and as rightly pointed by the ld. AR that making addition in the hands of the assessee by taking into

JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

154 of the Act, in my opinion is not justified. Further, admittedly, there is no mistake apparent from the record in the case of assessee to rectify the total income determined by the AO u/s. 143(1) of the Act and as rightly pointed by the ld. AR that making addition in the hands of the assessee by taking into

M/S SOVA,PANAJI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2018-19 M/S Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aacfs8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent

154 of the Act called upon the appellant to show cause as to why mistake in allowing excessive business loss of the year under consideration should not be corrected & restricted to ₹16,52,81,642/- instead of incorrect c/f of ₹22,65,10,180/- allowed in computation of income by the Ld. NFeAC. The assessee vide its reply dt. 12/12/2023

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

M/S. KINECO (P) LTD.,BARDEZ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Kineco (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 60, Pilerne Industrial 2(4), Panaji. Vs. Estate, Pilerne, Bardez Goa- 403511. (Pan: Aabcm8681P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 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)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 418/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 01.06.2018 For A.Y. 2013-14 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-2(4), Panaji Dated 22.03.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

1 of the paper book to demonstrate that assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year and thus, no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted. 5 Kineco (P) Ltd., A.Y: 2013-14 6.2. During the course of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the assessee also referred to the amendment inserted by way of an explanation

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), PANAJI vs. M/S V. M. SALGAOCAR & BROTHERS (P) LTD., VASCO

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos. 209 To 211/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section 154(1A) of the Act, there is no time for amending an order on any matter other than the matter which has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 10 ACIT Vs M/s V M Salgaonkar & Bros. Pvt Ltd. ITA No. 209-211/PAN/2019

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), PANAJI vs. M/S V. M. SALGAOCAR & BROTHERS (P) LTD., VASCO

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos. 209 To 211/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section 154(1A) of the Act, there is no time for amending an order on any matter other than the matter which has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 10 ACIT Vs M/s V M Salgaonkar & Bros. Pvt Ltd. ITA No. 209-211/PAN/2019

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), PANAJI vs. M/S V. M. SALGAOCAR & BROTHERS (P) LTD., VASCO

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos. 209 To 211/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section 154(1A) of the Act, there is no time for amending an order on any matter other than the matter which has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 10 ACIT Vs M/s V M Salgaonkar & Bros. Pvt Ltd. ITA No. 209-211/PAN/2019

SHRI MAHALAXMI CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,KUNNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [In short “the Act”], NFAC’s Delhi Din & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1036666602(1) dated 30.10.2021 and CIT(A), Belgaum, dated 16.12.2019 in ITA.No. CIT(A)/BGM/1010288/2018-19, respectively, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [In short “the Act”]. 2. Heard all the assessees’ as well as the department. Case files

JAI HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 2(1), BELAGAVI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [In short “the Act”], NFAC’s Delhi Din & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1036666602(1) dated 30.10.2021 and CIT(A), Belgaum, dated 16.12.2019 in ITA.No. CIT(A)/BGM/1010288/2018-19, respectively, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [In short “the Act”]. 2. Heard all the assessees’ as well as the department. Case files

SHRI BRAHMANATH CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,NIPANI vs. ITO, WARD - 1 , NIPANI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [In short “the Act”], NFAC’s Delhi Din & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1036666602(1) dated 30.10.2021 and CIT(A), Belgaum, dated 16.12.2019 in ITA.No. CIT(A)/BGM/1010288/2018-19, respectively, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [In short “the Act”]. 2. Heard all the assessees’ as well as the department. Case files

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI vs. M/S JAY RAM ORE CARRIERS, VASCO

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.227/Pan/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vs. M/S. Jay Ram Ore Goa. Carriers, 2Nd Floor, Sunflower Appts, Opp. St. Andrew Church, Vasco, Goa. Pan : Aaffj0752R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Assessee By : Shri R. D. Onkar Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Respondent-Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Operation Of Barge Of Contract. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed By The Appellant Firm On 29.07.2014 Declaring Total Income

1), Panaji, Vs. M/s. Jay Ram Ore Goa. Carriers, 2nd Floor, Sunflower Appts, Opp. St. Andrew Church, Vasco, Goa. PAN : AAFFJ0752R Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri N. Shrikanth Assessee by : Shri R. D. Onkar Date of hearing : 16.08.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against

PEDNE TALUKA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PEDNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.198/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) Pende Taluka Farmers Service Vs I T O Ward2(2), Co-Operative Society Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, . Sahakar Bhawan, Edc, Patto, Pernem, Panjim Goa-403512. Goa-403001. Pan .No. Aaaap0651P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Arun .F.Naik.Ar Revenue By Shri.Guru Kumar.S.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit (A)-12 Mumbai Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 154 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Application & Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Sufficient Cause Is Explained & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal

154 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the application and affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and sufficient cause is explained and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the grounds