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

2)(iii) 5 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. and not on the basis of the average of total value of investments appeared in the audited balance sheet of the appellant. 4. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO in the sum of Rs.1

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

2)(iii) 5 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. and not on the basis of the average of total value of investments appeared in the audited balance sheet of the appellant. 4. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO in the sum of Rs.1

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowed the claim of entire deduction holding it as AOP. In framing the aforestated assessment, the Ld. AO placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of ‘CIT Vs Bankipur Club Ltd.’ reported in 226 ITR 97 (SC) [equivalent citation 92 taxman 278] and ‘Chelmsford Club Vs CIT’ reported

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowed the claim of entire deduction holding it as AOP. In framing the aforestated assessment, the Ld. AO placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of ‘CIT Vs Bankipur Club Ltd.’ reported in 226 ITR 97 (SC) [equivalent citation 92 taxman 278] and ‘Chelmsford Club Vs CIT’ reported

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowed the claim of entire deduction holding it as AOP. In framing the aforestated assessment, the Ld. AO placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of ‘CIT Vs Bankipur Club Ltd.’ reported in 226 ITR 97 (SC) [equivalent citation 92 taxman 278] and ‘Chelmsford Club Vs CIT’ reported

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowed the claim of entire deduction holding it as AOP. In framing the aforestated assessment, the Ld. AO placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of ‘CIT Vs Bankipur Club Ltd.’ reported in 226 ITR 97 (SC) [equivalent citation 92 taxman 278] and ‘Chelmsford Club Vs CIT’ reported

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowed the claim of entire deduction holding it as AOP. In framing the aforestated assessment, the Ld. AO placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of ‘CIT Vs Bankipur Club Ltd.’ reported in 226 ITR 97 (SC) [equivalent citation 92 taxman 278] and ‘Chelmsford Club Vs CIT’ reported

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowed the claim of entire deduction holding it as AOP. In framing the aforestated assessment, the Ld. AO placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of ‘CIT Vs Bankipur Club Ltd.’ reported in 226 ITR 97 (SC) [equivalent citation 92 taxman 278] and ‘Chelmsford Club Vs CIT’ reported

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

v. ACIT, which judgment has also been taken note of by the tribunal while repelling the contention raised by revenue with regard to retrospectivity of section 92BA(i) of the Act. Thus, when clause (i) of Section 92BA having been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.07.2017 from the Statute the resultant effect is that

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

v. ACIT, which judgment has also been taken note of by the tribunal while repelling the contention raised by revenue with regard to retrospectivity of section 92BA(i) of the Act. Thus, when clause (i) of Section 92BA having been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.07.2017 from the Statute the resultant effect is that

SMT SUNANDA ANIL SALVE,NIPANI, BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

2(47}(v), the importance of the word 'transfer' is due to the reason that under the charging section, viz., section 45, and the capital gain is taxable on 'transfer of a capital asset1. Precisely, this section prescribes that 'any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall be chargeable

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

M/S SALITHO ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - M1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

M/S SESA RESOURS LTD (FORMERLY V. S. DEMPO & CO. PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2004-05 Sesa Resources Limied Vs. Acit, (Formerly V.S. Dempo & Co., Pvt. Circle-1(1), Aayakar Ltd.), Bhavan, Sesa Ghor, 20 Edc Complex, Edc Complex, Patto, Patto, Panaji, Panaji, Goa – 403 001. Goa. Pan: Aaacv7160R

section 271 (1) (c) of a sum of Rs.7,26,536/-. Your Appellant contends that the Assessee has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars thereof. Your Petitioner prays for directions for deleting the penalty as above. 2. Your Petitioner craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete the above Ground of Appeal.” 3. Facts