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

disallowance under section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 applying the provisions of Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962. 20. Brief facts pertains to the above issue are that the assessee company received dividend income of Rs.5,83,58,130/- on an average investments of Rs.233,32

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

disallowance under section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 applying the provisions of Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962. 20. Brief facts pertains to the above issue are that the assessee company received dividend income of Rs.5,83,58,130/- on an average investments of Rs.233,32

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 32 of the Act on the other hand, allows a deduction for depreciation on tangible (buildings, furniture & fixture and Plant & machinery) as well as on intangible assets (know-how, patents, copyrights, licenses, franchises) owned and used for business or professional purposes. 38. In the present case, the impugned ‘stamp duty’ payment disallowed

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

Section 32 of the Act on the other hand, allows a deduction for depreciation on tangible (buildings, furniture & fixture and Plant & machinery) as well as on intangible assets (know-how, patents, copyrights, licenses, franchises) owned and used for business or professional purposes. 38. In the present case, the impugned ‘stamp duty’ payment disallowed

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

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 and (3) items were purchased prior to previous year relevant to assessment year. 3.3 The assessee challenged

SCORPIO IRON LTD,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

32. Further, one very important fact in this case is that, assessee has shown entire profit from sale of industrial profit as business income and once such business income has been accepted and no adverse comment has been given by Ld. CIT, then such a profit arising from sale of industrial park ostensibly falls within section 80 IA (4). Hence

SHREE AMBEY FORGING PRIVAT LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - (4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

32. Further, one very important fact in this case is that, assessee has shown entire profit from sale of industrial profit as business income and once such business income has been accepted and no adverse comment has been given by Ld. CIT, then such a profit arising from sale of industrial park ostensibly falls within section 80 IA (4). Hence

M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (SALT) PVT. LTD,MORMUGAO vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 390/Pan/2017 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S Chowgule & Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd., Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa – 403803. Pan: Aabcc 5595 J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Ms Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull Am; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Panaji-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 09/10/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Tousled Out Of Order Of Assessment Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-2, Margoa [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 27/07/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 23

disallowed the difference of claim of ₹11,35,950/-. 6.5 Thirdly, the Ld. AO called upon the assessee to explain why the provision towards the leave encashment of ₹32,026/- debited to P&L should not be added back in computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, as unascertained liability. In support of its claim as ascertained liability

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

disallowed in the then assessment for assessment year 2013-14 but was assessed as a capital expenditure and was allowed to add to capital work in progress. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the revised return under section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] could not be filed by the appellant

MR. PRASAD VASUDEV KENI,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

32,39,310/- (being 50% of Rs. 64,78,619/- in terms of Sec 5A) - Ref. Para 4.5 of Assessment Order. 2. While the AO has reached his conclusion on the basis that "no separate management is kept for looking after above investment" (Ref. para 4.3 of the order) the Ld. CIT erred in holding that the appellant's submission

MRS. VINI PRASAD KENI,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

32,39,310/- (being 50% of Rs. 64,78,619/- in terms of Sec 5A) - Ref. Para 4.5 of Assessment Order. 2. While the AO has reached his conclusion on the basis that "no separate management is kept for looking after above investment" (Ref. para 4.3 of the order) the Ld. CIT erred in holding that the appellant's submission

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi M/S. Manipal Technologies Limited, Vs. Udayavani Building, Manipal- 576104. Pan: Aabcm 9516 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Department Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangaluru In Appeal No. Ita No. 10030/Udp/Cit(A)Mng/2016-17 Dated 27.11.2017 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle- 1, Udupi Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2016. 2. There Are Six Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Department In The Present Appeal, All Of Which Relate To The Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The Act R.W.R. 8D(2)(Ii) & 8D(2)(Iii) Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Rules), Amounting To Rs. 1,61,65,201/-.

32,06,800/- made from the own funds of the assessee. Own funds were at Rs. 239,60,57,866/- as on 31.03.2013. It further submitted that no amount was spent to earn the dividend income and hence no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. While completing the assessment, ld. AO relied on various case laws for making the disallowance

SURAJDATTA SAGUN MORAJKAR,NERUL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI GOA, PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Surajdatta Sagun Morajkar C/O. Sun Estate Developers, Next To Sal De Goa, Bhatti Waddo, Bardez, Goa-403114 Pan : Aempm7614J . . . . . . . Appellant

section 5A of the Act was for the year under consideration engaged in the business of real estate development and construction in the name & style of ‘Sun Estate Developer’ and also a partner in M/s ‘SM Venture.’ The assessee filed his return of income on 30/03/2018 declaring total income at ₹4,47,72,090/- which was subjected to scrutiny

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

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

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 & Ors 7 The Begaum Manfacturers Coop.& Ors v. ITO 4. Brief

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

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 & Ors 7 The Begaum Manfacturers Coop.& Ors v. ITO 4. Brief

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

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 & Ors 7 The Begaum Manfacturers Coop.& Ors v. ITO 4. Brief

THE KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ATHANI vs. 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

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 & Ors 7 The Begaum Manfacturers Coop.& Ors v. ITO 4. Brief