ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

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

1) of section 251 and s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 16 M/s Potdar Brothers ITA Nos.175 to 177 & 179 to 180/PAN/2025 6 Sticking ground number 3 of appeal, the Revenue argued that, from the incrementing material seized during the course of search it revealed to the Ld. AO that, the assessee debited

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

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

1) of section 251 and s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 16 M/s Potdar Brothers ITA Nos.175 to 177 & 179 to 180/PAN/2025 6 Sticking ground number 3 of appeal, the Revenue argued that, from the incrementing material seized during the course of search it revealed to the Ld. AO that, the assessee debited

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

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

1) of section 251 and s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 16 M/s Potdar Brothers ITA Nos.175 to 177 & 179 to 180/PAN/2025 6 Sticking ground number 3 of appeal, the Revenue argued that, from the incrementing material seized during the course of search it revealed to the Ld. AO that, the assessee debited

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

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

1) of section 251 and s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 16 M/s Potdar Brothers ITA Nos.175 to 177 & 179 to 180/PAN/2025 6 Sticking ground number 3 of appeal, the Revenue argued that, from the incrementing material seized during the course of search it revealed to the Ld. AO that, the assessee debited

HERALD PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 160/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Herald Publication Pvt. Ltd. Ag-6, Campal Trade Centre, Opp. Taj Vivanta, H/H Mili, Panaji, Goa-403001 Pan : Aaach4580K . . . . . . . Appellant V/S National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent

1) of the Act. Consequent to such disallowance & determination of income u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, a penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act were initiated. The assessee choose to remain silent. In the absence of rebuttal, the penalty proceeding ceased by imposing penalty equal to 50% of tax sought to have evaded by an order dt. 26/09/2023

MAHADEV MALLAPPA ATAR,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELAGAVI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 014/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mahadev Mallappa Atar Pwd Contractor, Katkol, Ramdurg, Dist. Balgavi-591114 Pan:Abxpa7467P . . . . . . . Appellant

disallowance of cash payment of ₹32,000/- made to M/s Nirani Cements and (4) unexplained cash deposits of ₹20,00,000/- added u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforestated additions the assessee filed first appeal before Ld. NFAC which came to be dismissed. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 Mahadev Mallappa Atar Vs ITO ITA Nos.14/PAN/2024

KABBUR POORVA BHAG VIVIDODDHESHA PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI S SANGH NI, KABBUR,KABBUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 304/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Kabbur Purvbhag Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit At Post: Kabbur, Tal.:Chikodi, Dist.:Belgaum. Pan : Aadat9192J . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Nippani. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069069880(1) Dt. 25/09/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 10/03/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereafter].

disallowance of 80P(2) travelled in first appeal, the Ld. NFAC considered the material placed before him and without conclusively adjudicating it u/s 251 of the Act, re-directed the same to the Ld. AO vide para 6.2.3 placed on pg 16 of the order. We are heedful to the restriction placed by clause (a) of sub- 7. section (1

THE SANKHLI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,SANKHLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 058/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15

1) of the Act. Subsequently the case of the assessee selected for scrutiny and consequential assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 21/10/2016 whereby two additions were made viz; (i) claim for deduction of ₹54,91,931/- u/s 80P of the Act was disallowed and (ii) ₹51,56,366/- was disallowed

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

1) or 253(2) of the Act is required to be filed within two months from the end of the month in which order sought to be appealed is communicated to the assessee. In view thereof the present twin appeals are filed with a 19 days delay. Thus these appeals are filed beyond the statutory period of two month from

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

1) or 253(2) of the Act is required to be filed within two months from the end of the month in which order sought to be appealed is communicated to the assessee. In view thereof the present twin appeals are filed with a 19 days delay. Thus these appeals are filed beyond the statutory period of two month from

GOA MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.63/Pan/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Goa Minerals Private Limited, The Assistant P.B.No.14, Salgaocar House, V Commissioner Of Income Dr.F.L.Gomes Road, S Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vasco Da Gama, Goa. Goa – 403802 Pan: Aaacg 6716 C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Veer Raghavan – Ar Revenue By Shri N. Shrikanth – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2023

1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in not granting depreciation during the year under present appeal (i.e. in the year of put to use), on expenditure of Rs.6,248,885 relating to financial year 2012-13, the claim of which as a revenue expenditure was disallowed in the then assessment for assessment

SONALI MAHENDRA NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition made by the AO on the ground of alleged failure to furnish requisite documentary evidences either before the AO or during the appeal proceedings despite the fact that the same was duly provided. Failure to adhere to mandatory procedure for reopening of assessment 3. The Appellant submits that the above grounds of appeal

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’]

disallowance of excess depreciation of 1,82,643/- . 2.4 Aggrieved assessee company preferred an appeal u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) on 25/01/2012 which was instituted for first appellate adjudication vide Appeal No : CIT(A)/PNJ/10310/2019-20 and dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) by an order dt. 17/03/2025. ITAT-Panaji Page

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

1. “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has no jurisdiction u/s 251 for remanding to AO or directing the AO to decide, subject to conditions, in accordance with directions; and accordingly the remarks be expunged in Para 7 of the impugned order that "Subject to satisfying the AO that it does

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

Appeal is allowed in above terms

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

1. “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has no jurisdiction u/s 251 for remanding to AO or directing the AO to decide, subject to conditions, in accordance with directions; and accordingly the remarks be expunged in Para 7 of the impugned order that "Subject to satisfying the AO that it does

VIVIDHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,SANKHLIM, BICHOLIM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), PANAJI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

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

251 for remanding to AO or directing the AO to decide, subject to conditions, in accordance with directions; and accordingly the remarks be expunged in Para 9 of the impugned order that "subject to the condition that the nominal members criteria be fulfilled i.e. the appellant should not have nominal members. Accordingly, as a result of verification