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

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

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

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

M/S SALITHO ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - M1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

SHRI GOPALKRISHNA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

32,96,330/- as deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act. 4.2 In a regular scrutiny assessment, the Ld. AO disallowed assessee’s claim of 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction and determined resultant total income at ₹47,78,707/- as against the NIL income returned by the assessee. 4.3 In an appeal, Ld. CIT(A) following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

SHRI GOPALKRISHNA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

32,96,330/- as deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act. 4.2 In a regular scrutiny assessment, the Ld. AO disallowed assessee’s claim of 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction and determined resultant total income at ₹47,78,707/- as against the NIL income returned by the assessee. 4.3 In an appeal, Ld. CIT(A) following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BEDKIHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

32,96,330/- as deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act. 4.2 In a regular scrutiny assessment, the Ld. AO disallowed assessee’s claim of 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction and determined resultant total income at ₹47,78,707/- as against the NIL income returned by the assessee. 4.3 In an appeal, Ld. CIT(A) following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

THE MARCEL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MARCEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

32,96,330/- as deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act. 4.2 In a regular scrutiny assessment, the Ld. AO disallowed assessee’s claim of 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction and determined resultant total income at ₹47,78,707/- as against the NIL income returned by the assessee. 4.3 In an appeal, Ld. CIT(A) following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

MR. AGNELO SOCORRO JOAQUIM VIEGAS,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 069/Pan/2025 & Sa 06/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Agnelo Socorro Joaquim Viegas H. No. 373, Galliwaddo, Taleigao, Caranzalem, Goa-403002. Pan : Akapv9049C . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Sanket Deshmukh[‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1073026397(1) Dt. 07/02/2025 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals(2), Ahmedabad [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Sprung Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 27/12/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income

32,000/- & ₹68,000/- into his SBI’s SB A/c No 10037069046 and SB A/c No 72092210002060 maintained with ‘Syndicate Bank’ respectively, the Ld. AO after recording reasons & obtaining prior approval from competent authority vide notice dt. 31/03/2018 issued u/s 148 of the Act reopened the assessee’s case for reassessment u/s 147 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page

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

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