ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., DONA PAULA

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 read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. (c) Without prejudice to the ground numbers 2(a) & (b), the CIT(A) in not allowing the alternative ground of the appellant that the average of the value of investments which yielded exempted income alone is to be considered for calculating disallowance as per rule

PRIME MINERAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH FOMENTO RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED),PANAJI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 003/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) 102, 1St Fl. Kamat Metropolis-1, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa-403001. . . . . . . .Appellant Pan : Aadcp1647E V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . Respondent Range-1, Panaji, Goa

section 14A of the Act vis- à-vis determination of such amount of disallowance u/c (iii) of rule 8D(2) of IT Rules. In view thereof, we do find any merit in the contention of the appellant and flaw in the action of tax authorities in invoking the former provisions for disallowance of expenditure. As a result, the contentions

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

28[or section 194LD] 29[***] or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act (not being income chargeable under the head "Salaries" 31[***]) shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft

BEIERSDORF INDIA (P) LTD.,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

28. Neither section 36(2) nor section 37(1) are applicable as the same is not a deduction from taxable income. The business activity was varied out by the appellants as they had investible surplus and were looking for an opportunity to engaged in a lucrative activity. No offence/prohibited activity has been conducted by the appellant. You are therefore requested

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

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

section does not visualize the substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Incom Commissioner for that of the Income Tax Officer, who passed the order e Tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is not in accordance with the law; that to invoke suomotu unless the decision is not in accordance with

M/S AHILIABAI SARDESSAI,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 378 & 379/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S. Ahilibai Sardessai 301, Lotus Court, M.G. Road, St. Inez Junction, Panaji-Goa-403 001 Pan : Aagfa9044G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji-Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri D.E. Robinson, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :22.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022

28,693.09, had however not attributed and therein disallowed any part of expenditure on a suo-motto basis in its return of income. On perusal of the records, we find that it is the claim of the assessee that as no part of the expenditure was attributable towards earning of M/s. Ahilibai Sardessai Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1) u/s.14A

M/S AHILIABAI SARDESSAI,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 378 & 379/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S. Ahilibai Sardessai 301, Lotus Court, M.G. Road, St. Inez Junction, Panaji-Goa-403 001 Pan : Aagfa9044G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji-Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri D.E. Robinson, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :22.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022

28,693.09, had however not attributed and therein disallowed any part of expenditure on a suo-motto basis in its return of income. On perusal of the records, we find that it is the claim of the assessee that as no part of the expenditure was attributable towards earning of M/s. Ahilibai Sardessai Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1) u/s.14A

M/S. KINECO (P) LTD.,BARDEZ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Kineco (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 60, Pilerne Industrial 2(4), Panaji. Vs. Estate, Pilerne, Bardez Goa- 403511. (Pan: Aabcm8681P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 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)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 418/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 01.06.2018 For A.Y. 2013-14 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-2(4), Panaji Dated 22.03.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

disallowance made u/s 14A of I.T. Act by the assessing officer in his assessment order although it is well settled that the provisions of section 14A are not applicable to the case of the appellant company for the year as no dividend income exempt from tax was received or receivable by it during the year under consideration.” 4. Brief facts

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

disallowance of long- term capital loss is concerned. As regards the claim of the assessee u/s 80HHC in respect of receipts from sale of premises, the AO imposed a penalty of Rs.7,26,536/-, by holding as under:- “In respect of the receipts by way of sale of premises to be included by the A.O. in explanation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI , BELAGAVI vs. SHRI IDREES MOHAMMED, KALABURAGI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi, . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Idrees Mohammed Shop No. 4Cc, New Vegetable Market, Main Road, Kalaburagi, Karnataka-585101. Pan: Aajpi7572E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Ramesh Mudhol [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Sashi Saklani [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax

28,530/- made on account of disallowance of agricultural income and treating ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 30 DCIT Vs Idrees Mohammed ITA No. 149/PAN/2023 AY: 2017-18 the same as Income from Other Sources without appreciating that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his agricultural income during the course of assessment proceeding

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BELGAUM vs. ITO, (TDS), BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 32 To 34/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 State Bank Of India Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Regional Branch Office Belgaum Goaves, Hindwadi Belgaum – 590 011 [Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. D/R Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022 Order Per Bench: These Captioned Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Belagavi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)] Even Dt. 08/11/2017, For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Challenging The Non-Compliance Of Provisions U/S 201(1)/(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter “The Act’]. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Appellant/Assessee State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office Is A Banking Company Engaged In The Business Of Banking. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted At The Bank Premises To Verify Compliance With Tds/Tcs Provisions. The Ito Held That The Assessee Has Failed To Deduct Tax At Source On The Reimbursement Made Against Foreign Ltc To The Officers Of The Bank & Accordingly He Applied The Provisions Of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) & Charged Interest U/S 201(1A) Of The Act. In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2.1. Aggrieved The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Finding Of The Ao By Observing As Under:-

28 of the Rules in conjunction lays down the guidelines for claiming exemption in relations to the travel concession received by an employee from his employer or former employer, for proceeding on leave to any place in India. The person is to undertake the journey to any place in India and thereafter return to the place of employment

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BELGAUM vs. ITO, (TDS), BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 32 To 34/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 State Bank Of India Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Regional Branch Office Belgaum Goaves, Hindwadi Belgaum – 590 011 [Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. D/R Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022 Order Per Bench: These Captioned Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Belagavi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)] Even Dt. 08/11/2017, For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Challenging The Non-Compliance Of Provisions U/S 201(1)/(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter “The Act’]. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Appellant/Assessee State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office Is A Banking Company Engaged In The Business Of Banking. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted At The Bank Premises To Verify Compliance With Tds/Tcs Provisions. The Ito Held That The Assessee Has Failed To Deduct Tax At Source On The Reimbursement Made Against Foreign Ltc To The Officers Of The Bank & Accordingly He Applied The Provisions Of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) & Charged Interest U/S 201(1A) Of The Act. In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2.1. Aggrieved The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Finding Of The Ao By Observing As Under:-

28 of the Rules in conjunction lays down the guidelines for claiming exemption in relations to the travel concession received by an employee from his employer or former employer, for proceeding on leave to any place in India. The person is to undertake the journey to any place in India and thereafter return to the place of employment

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BELGAUM vs. ITO, (TDS), BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 32 To 34/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 State Bank Of India Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Regional Branch Office Belgaum Goaves, Hindwadi Belgaum – 590 011 [Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. D/R Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022 Order Per Bench: These Captioned Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Belagavi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)] Even Dt. 08/11/2017, For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Challenging The Non-Compliance Of Provisions U/S 201(1)/(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter “The Act’]. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Appellant/Assessee State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office Is A Banking Company Engaged In The Business Of Banking. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted At The Bank Premises To Verify Compliance With Tds/Tcs Provisions. The Ito Held That The Assessee Has Failed To Deduct Tax At Source On The Reimbursement Made Against Foreign Ltc To The Officers Of The Bank & Accordingly He Applied The Provisions Of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) & Charged Interest U/S 201(1A) Of The Act. In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2.1. Aggrieved The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Finding Of The Ao By Observing As Under:-

28 of the Rules in conjunction lays down the guidelines for claiming exemption in relations to the travel concession received by an employee from his employer or former employer, for proceeding on leave to any place in India. The person is to undertake the journey to any place in India and thereafter return to the place of employment

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)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and has made disallowance of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks and nationalized banks aggregating to Rs.3,16,641/-and assessed the total income of Rs.3,16,640/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 21.03.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed

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)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and has not made separate disallowance of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks and scheduled banks. Finally the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations on the registration of the assessee society under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act 1997 and dealt on the provisions and judicial decisions 3 ITA. No.235/PAN/2025