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

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

M/S SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TXATION), WARD -1, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 73/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance is only in context of Residents [u/s 40a(ia)]. Further this benefit of proviso to section 201(1) is available subject to furnishing by the deductor a certificate from the accountant in Form 26

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

26,610/- under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order held that the appellant is not a co-operative bank but a mere co-operative society carrying on the business of providing credit facilities

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

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

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

Section 80-IA made by the appellant. 4. In this case the learned AR drew our attention to the order passed by the AO, wherein the AO in para 4.6 has noted as under :- 4.6 Further, the reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in case of Velayudhasamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v/s ACIT

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

Section 80-IA made by the appellant. 4. In this case the learned AR drew our attention to the order passed by the AO, wherein the AO in para 4.6 has noted as under :- 4.6 Further, the reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in case of Velayudhasamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v/s ACIT

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowed the claim of exemption under section 80P(2)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by holding that the assessee-society fulfils all conditions that are required to treat the assessee society as a Co-operative Bank/Primary Co-operative Bank, and the provisions of Section 80P(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961, are applicable. Accordingly, the A.O. computed the total

BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HARUGERI, BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), BELGAVI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and concluding that the Assessee is a Primary Co-operative Bank within the meaning of Part V of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. 2 ITA.No.14/PAN/2019 2. That the Authorities failed to appreciate that the assessee is not governed by Reserve Bank of India

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

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

26,550/- paid to M/s Bharati Cements and (3) 40A(3) 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

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), 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.No.344/Pan/2017 (A.Y.2013-14 ) Guala Closures(India) Vs. I T O Ward1(1), Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, D-1, Sesa Ghor, Edc, Patto, 20,Edc Complex, Panjim-403001. Patto, Goa. Panaji-403001, Goa Pan/Gir No.:Aaacg4447J Appellant .. Respondent

section 115-O of the Act vis-à-vis the rate of tax on dividend provided in the respective DTAA, etc. The assessee should be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And the additional ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.. Guala Closures (India) Private Limited

THE NUTAN MAHILA URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,MUNAVALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1), BELAGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

26 days, ITA No. 181/PAN/2018 is delay in 32 days and 180 is delay in 31 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting for appeal hearing. 3. First we will consider the appeal No. 184/PAN/2018 for AY 2018-2019 as lead case. ITA Nos. 170&171/PAN/2018

THE BELGAUM MANUFACTURERS CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LTD,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

26 days, ITA No. 181/PAN/2018 is delay in 32 days and 180 is delay in 31 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting for appeal hearing. 3. First we will consider the appeal No. 184/PAN/2018 for AY 2018-2019 as lead case. ITA Nos. 170&171/PAN/2018

M/S PRATHMIK KRUSHI SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMIT,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELGAUM

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

26 days, ITA No. 181/PAN/2018 is delay in 32 days and 180 is delay in 31 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting for appeal hearing. 3. First we will consider the appeal No. 184/PAN/2018 for AY 2018-2019 as lead case. ITA Nos. 170&171/PAN/2018

THE BELGAUM MANUFACTURERS CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LTD,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

26 days, ITA No. 181/PAN/2018 is delay in 32 days and 180 is delay in 31 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting for appeal hearing. 3. First we will consider the appeal No. 184/PAN/2018 for AY 2018-2019 as lead case. ITA Nos. 170&171/PAN/2018

M/S NERLI PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMIT,NERLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELAGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

26 days, ITA No. 181/PAN/2018 is delay in 32 days and 180 is delay in 31 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting for appeal hearing. 3. First we will consider the appeal No. 184/PAN/2018 for AY 2018-2019 as lead case. ITA Nos. 170&171/PAN/2018

SHRI MAHALAXMI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,NANDAGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

26 days, ITA No. 181/PAN/2018 is delay in 32 days and 180 is delay in 31 days. The assessees prayed for condonation of delay. In all the three appeals delay are condoned and accepting for appeal hearing. 3. First we will consider the appeal No. 184/PAN/2018 for AY 2018-2019 as lead case. ITA Nos. 170&171/PAN/2018