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 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of assessee. 22. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the AO may be directed to calculate the disallowance attributable to exempted income as per Rule 8D (2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules 1962 by considering

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 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of assessee. 22. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the AO may be directed to calculate the disallowance attributable to exempted income as per Rule 8D (2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules 1962 by considering

MRS VINI P. KENI,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), 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. Nos. 112/Pan/2022 (A.Y. 2014-15 ) Vini Prasad Keni, Vs Ito-Ward-1(3), Keni Building, Aayakar Bhavan, . Dr.Dada Vaidhya Road, Panaji-403001, Panjim-403001, Goa. Goa. . Pan .No. Adppk9767N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.E.Robinson.Ar Revenue By Sri Narender Reddy.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/ Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised

disallowance u/sec14A r.w.r8D of IT rules of Rs.32,96,384/-(ii) The A.O found that the assesee has debited Rs,25,00,000/- in the profit & loss account towards reimbursement of processing and other mining expenses and the assessee has not deducted TDS 3 ITA. No. 112/PAN/2022 Vini.Prasad Keni. u/sec194C of the Act. The assessee has filed the submissions explaining

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance on such deduction. Hence, it cannot be held that Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry or investigated the issue which he was required to do so before allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80 IA or has allowed without examining the assessee's transaction with its subsidiary, Noida Towers Private Limited. 24. One of the key allegations

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance on such deduction. Hence, it cannot be held that Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry or investigated the issue which he was required to do so before allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80 IA or has allowed without examining the assessee's transaction with its subsidiary, Noida Towers Private Limited. 24. One of the key allegations

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.16,14,660/-. Aggrieved, assessee went into appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4.3. While confirming

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

25,000/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D2(iii) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 [‘IT-Rules’ hereinafter] (b) ₹37,27,447/- disallowance u/s 40(a) r.w.s. 195 of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source from sampling charges paid to Hongkong Party and (c) ₹1,14,11,643/- disallowance of forex fluctuation loss claimed in respect

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

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

Disallowance of the provision for leave encashment: 1) The learned CIT(A) has erred on fact and in law in upholding the order of the Learned Assessing Officer in making addition of the leave encashment amount to the book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act by holding the same to be a provision for liabilities other than ascertained

PARKKOT MARITIME AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,GOA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, MARGAO., MARGAO

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

disallowance made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji-I, has greatly relied on the observations of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax based on the provisions of Section 80-I. Section 80-I has lost its applicability and relevance with effect from 1-4- 1991 when Section

PARKKOT MARITIME AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,GOA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

disallowance made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji-I, has greatly relied on the observations of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax based on the provisions of Section 80-I. Section 80-I has lost its applicability and relevance with effect from 1-4- 1991 when Section

M/S SIDDHARTH NATURAL FOOD RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,KUNDAIM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.187/Pan/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Siddharth Natural Food Resources Private Limited, Plot No.83, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Panaji- 403001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aalcs5815K बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Panaji. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Panaji (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Is Void-Ab-Initio. 2) The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. 3) The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.3,35,25,800/- Made By The Ao, Whereas The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80Ib Was Only Rs.50,00,194/-. 4) The Ld Ao Has Erred In Disallowing The Profit As Per Profit & Loss Account Of Rs.3,35,25,800/- Whereas The Profit As Per The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Only Rs.50,00,194/- Which Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80Ib In The Return Of Income Filled By The Assessee. Hence The Maximum Addition By Way Of Disallowance Of Assessee Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ib Can Be Only Rs.50,00,194/-.

25,800/- denying the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act on the ground that (i) the assessee had not been engaged the process of producing vegetables or fruits as it is engaged in the business of pasteurized of milk and its sale; (ii) the business of dairy products was eligible for deduction under sub-section

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/-.

25-10- 2013, in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10, has considered the issue at length and after considering the judicial precedent in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT(supra) and the provisions of rule 8D, has remanded the issue to the file of the AO for re-examination. The relevant

THE KHANAPUR vs. S SANGH LTD,BELGAUMVS.PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

section 263 for disallowing same. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the learned PCIT has termed the Assessing Officer’s corresponding regular assessment framed u/sec.143(3) of the Act dated 30.11.2019 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest

SOCIAL CLUB AND KREEDA BHAVAN,BELGAVI vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1), BELGAVI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am Social Club & Kreeda Bhavan, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Belagavi College Road, Belagavi-590002 Pan No.Aacas 6996 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.B.Chandargi, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr.Dr 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 19.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013- 2013, On The Following Grounds :- 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Belgaum Has Erred In Upholding The Order Assessing Officer Disallowing Expenses Under The Head Business Or Profession Even Though Income Is Exempted As Mutual Concern By The Assessing Officer. This Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

25,000/- to Civil Contractor and Rs. 1,37,692/- made towards payment of security charges. The assessee failed to make TDS as required under TDS provisions. Therefore, the same is brought to tax u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.2,62,692/-. 5. On perusal of the above observations of the CIT(A), with regard disallowance made u/s.40

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), , BELGAVI vs. SHIVA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, BELGAVI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance made by the A.O. observing that the income earned from persons other than its regular members would not be eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and such income earned from business with persons other than the regular members would be taxable as income from business. Similar issue was placed for adjudication

SHRI DEEPAK GURUNATH GOJAGEKAR,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BELAGAVI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

Section 115BBE as amended with effect from 01/04/2017 cannot be applied retrospectively. Hence, disallowance of set of Business Loss of Rs.3,25

SHRI DEEPAK GURUNATH GOJAGEKAR,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BELAGAVI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

Section 115BBE as amended with effect from 01/04/2017 cannot be applied retrospectively. Hence, disallowance of set of Business Loss of Rs.3,25

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.

section 14A of the Act, but had failed to give any reason as to why the claim of the assessee that no part of the expenditure could be attributed towards earning of exempt income was not to be accepted. Although, the CIT(Appeals) in his order had tried to improve upon the aforesaid lapse of the A.O, but a perusal