VEERENDRA BASAVARAJ KOUJALAGI,BELAGAVI vs. PCIT HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 103/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi C/O. Shri Laxmi Complex, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan : Agrpk3086D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1063626985(1) Dt. 29/03/2024 Passed By Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which Sought To Revise Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/04/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

section 14A of the Act. Upon coming to conclusion that the assessment was culminated without conducting inquiries / verification into earning of exempt income vis-à-vis disallowance of expenditure (if any) incurred towards earning of such exempt income, by issue of notice u/s 263

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

SHRI JADISIDDESHWAR URBAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,SUNADHOLI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

The appeal stands PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Jadisiddeshwar Urban Co-Operative Credit Society, Ltd. At Post: Sunadholi, Dist. Belgavi-591136 Pan:Aaaaj2715N . . . . . . . Appellant

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the Ld. AO accepted the claim for deduction and resultant returned NIL income vide an assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2.2 Post assessment, assessment records were called & perused u/s 263 of the Act wherein it was contrivance to the Ld. PCIT that, for the year under consideration

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

263 of the Act. The satisfaction of twin conditions essential for invocation in the present case since found satisfied therefore the impugned action of Ld. PCIT in reversing the Ld. NFeAC’s treatment finds fortified in view of the binding judicial precedence laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. Vs CIT’ [2000, 109 Taxman

MRS. SUNITA MALLIKARJUN MAHAJANSHETTI,PACHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2[2], BELAGAVI

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

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

section 263 of the Act, date of order 08.12.2017. 2. We advert to the basic relevant facts. In the assessment year assessee claimed sundry creditors amount to rupees 1,39,18,835/–. Out of the total sundry creditors amount to Rs.67,85,555/– was accepted by the learned AO. The balance sundry creditors amount to Rs.49,10,490/- was disallowed

ZUARI MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD.,GOA vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Zuari Management Services Ltd. (Erstwhile Zuari Infrastructure & Developers Ltd., Formerly Zuari Sez Ltd.) Jai Kisaan Nagar, Zuari Nagar, Goa. Pan: Aaacz2903Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Salil Kapoor [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar N [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for assessment year ("AY") 2009-10, and the disallowances

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

section 263 and by order dt. 19/04/2024 set-aside the former order for fresh assessment for Ld. AO’s failure to conduct inquiry. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 13 Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar Vs ITO ITA No.: 313/PAN/2025 AY: 2016-17 3. Pursuant to revisionary direction of Ld. PCIT, the Ld. AO conducted the inquiries and by considering

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

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallowance of addition made u/sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. The learned Sr.DR conceded that the facts are absolutely identical and similar. 4. We observe that the Pune Tribunal in ITA No.231/PUN/2022 (supra) on examination of the facts held as follows: “3 …. The appellant is a cooperative society formed

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallowance of addition made u/sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. The learned Sr.DR conceded that the facts are absolutely identical and similar. 4. We observe that the Pune Tribunal in ITA No.231/PUN/2022 (supra) on examination of the facts held as follows: “3 …. The appellant is a cooperative society formed

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallowance of addition made u/sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. The learned Sr.DR conceded that the facts are absolutely identical and similar. 4. We observe that the Pune Tribunal in ITA No.231/PUN/2022 (supra) on examination of the facts held as follows: “3 …. The appellant is a cooperative society formed

DEMPO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing At Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 131/Pan/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dempo Industries Pvt. Ltd., Dempo House, Campal, Panaji, Goa - 403001 Pan: Aaacu1745F . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

263 of the Act on 29/03/2016 by disallowing additional depreciation of ₹21,69,257/- claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on threefold reasons viz; (1) the business of newspaper publication do not amount to manufacturing or production of any article or thing (2) items against which additional depreciation is claimed do not qualify to be plant & machinery

THE CAMP MULTIPURPOSE PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PERNEM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), PANAJI, GOA

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

disallowed by Assessing Officer & confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by relying upon decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of principle Ld.CIT Vs. Totgar’s Co- Operative Sales Society Ltd. 6 ITA. No..55/PAN/2026 The Camp Multipurpose Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited 7. Issue as to the allow-ability of the deduction claimed by the Assessee

SHRI BRAHMANATH CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,NIPPANI vs. ITO 1 NIPPANI, NIPPANI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.66/Pan/2026 (A.Y. 2013-14 ) Shri Brahmanath Credit Vs I.T.O-Ward-1, Souhard Sahakari Sangh Nemchand Building, . Niyamat, 747,Ashoknagar, 185/C, Chikodi Road, Nippani-591237, Nippani, Karnataka. Belagavi-591237, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaas1063Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.U.G.Ammangi.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/Cit(A) U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Deduction Of Interest Income From Cooperative Society, Cooperative Banks & Nationalized Banks U/Sec80P(2)(D) Of The Act. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Is Engaged In Activities Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2013-14 On 2 Ita. No..66/Pan/2026 Shri Brahmanath Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit. 30.09.2013 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.Nil After Claiming Deduction Of Rs.78,06,780/- U/Sec 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. Subsequently The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Order U/Sec143(3) Of The Act Was Passed Disallowing The Claim U/Sec80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act Of Rs.78,06,780/- & Disallowance U/Sec40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Of Rs.76,274/- & Assessed The Total Income Of Rs.78,83,054/- Vide Order Dated21.07.2021.Aggrived By The Order, On Appeal To The Cit(A), The Appeal Was Partly Allowed & The Assessee Has Preferred Second Appeal Before The Honble Tribunal & Vide By Order

disallowed by Assessing Officer & confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by relying upon decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of principle Ld.CIT Vs. Totgar’s Co- Operative Sales Society Ltd. 7. Issue as to the allow-ability of the deduction claimed by the Assessee u/s. 80P (2)(d) of the Act, is no longer Res-Integra having

SHRI MALLIKARJUN URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. ITO WARD 1 BELGAUM, BELGAUM

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

disallowed by Assessing Officer & confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by relying upon decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of principle Ld.CIT Vs. Totgar’s Co- Operative Sales Society Ltd. 7. Issue as to the allow-ability of the deduction claimed by the Assessee u/s. 80P (2)(d) of the Act, is no longer Res-Integra having

BARDC BANK,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.296 & 297/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Ito-Ward-1, Vs Pld Bank, Main Road, Santerikrupa, . Uttara Kannada, Kaigaroad, Bhatkal S.O. Habbuwada, Karnataka-581320. Karwar-581306, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

disallowed by Assessing Officer & confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by relying upon decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of principle Ld.CIT Vs. Totgar’s Co- Operative Sales Society Ltd. 7. Issue as to the allow-ability of the deduction claimed by the Assessee u/s. 80P (2)(d) of the Act, is no longer Res-Integra having

BARDC BANK,BHATKAL vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.296 & 297/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Ito-Ward-1, Vs Pld Bank, Main Road, Santerikrupa, . Uttara Kannada, Kaigaroad, Bhatkal S.O. Habbuwada, Karnataka-581320. Karwar-581306, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

disallowed by Assessing Officer & confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by relying upon decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of principle Ld.CIT Vs. Totgar’s Co- Operative Sales Society Ltd. 7. Issue as to the allow-ability of the deduction claimed by the Assessee u/s. 80P (2)(d) of the Act, is no longer Res-Integra having

SHRI HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGH LTD,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPPANI

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

disallowed by Assessing Officer & confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by relying upon decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of principle Ld.CIT Vs. Totgar’s Co- Operative Sales Society Ltd. 7. Issue as to the allow-ability of the deduction claimed by the Assessee u/s. 80P (2)(d) of the Act, is no longer Res-Integra having