M/S VEEJAY FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return’ 8. Sub-section (1) of section 143 states that a return shall be processed to compute total income by making six types of `adjustments’ as set out in sub-clauses (i) to (vi). As noted

FOMENTO KARNATAKA MINING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH FOMENTO RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pan/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Fomento Karnataka Mining Vs. Jcit, Margao Range, Company Private Limited, Margao, Goa. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Private Limited), 102, 1St Floor, Kamat Metropolis-I, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa- 403001. Pan : Aaacf7487K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 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)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 27.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Trading In The Iron Ore. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.26,40,77,220/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) At A Total Income Of Rs.26,63,57,955/-. While Doing So, The Assessing Officer Made Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.15,49,787/-, Disallowance On Account Of Sundry Creditors Extracting As Fictitious Of Rs.7,30,948/-. 3. Being Aggrieved, An Appeal Was Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A) Contending That No Disallowance U/S 14A Is Required To Be Made In The Absence Of Any Expenditure Incurred To Earn The Exempt Income. It Was Also Contended That No Addition On Account Of Outstanding Creditors Is Required To Be Made, As The Credits Represent The Opening

30,948/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) contending that no disallowance u/s 14A is required to be made in the absence of any expenditure incurred to earn the exempt income. It was also contended that no addition on account of outstanding creditors is required to be made, as the credits represent the opening

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

30-11-2014 disclosing a total income of Rs.8,31,650/-. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and the notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire are issued. In compliance, the Ld.AR of the assesse appeared from time to time and submitted the information and details. The Assessing Officer

GOA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 41/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Goa Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, Sharma Shakti Bhavan, Edc Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa – 403 001 . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan:Aaacg7029G

30,05,030/-, on account of disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the aforestated additions u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, both these assessee’s taken up the matter before first appellate authority and in the event of unsuccessful attempt, the assessees brought up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal against said disallowance

MUKTAR AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,VERNA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 41/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Goa Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, Sharma Shakti Bhavan, Edc Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa – 403 001 . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan:Aaacg7029G

30,05,030/-, on account of disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the aforestated additions u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, both these assessee’s taken up the matter before first appellate authority and in the event of unsuccessful attempt, the assessees brought up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal against said disallowance

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

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section

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

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section

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

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section

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

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section

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

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI, AYAKAR BHAWAN vs. VPK URBAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY , VPK BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

KUMTA ADIKE MARATA SOPUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

BASAV SOUHARDA CREDIT SAHAKARI NIYAMIT BAILHONGAL,BAILHONGALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTER, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

SAMARTH URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MARDOL, PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

SHRI BASAVESHWAR URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT LTD BHOJ,BHOJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIPANI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

THE ADARSH MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1-(2) , BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

SHRI BASAVESHWAR URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into