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 made by the AO in the sum of Rs.1,17,09,419/- incurred abroad on account of supervision charges at discharge port and rs.5,77,23,014.18 incurred abroad on professional and consultancy fees by invoking the provisions of section 40(a) of the Act. The ld. Counsel also submitted that without prejudice to the ground

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 made by the AO in the sum of Rs.1,17,09,419/- incurred abroad on account of supervision charges at discharge port and rs.5,77,23,014.18 incurred abroad on professional and consultancy fees by invoking the provisions of section 40(a) of the Act. The ld. Counsel also submitted that without prejudice to the ground

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

33. In so far as the Ld. CIT observing that Assessing Officer has failed to examine applicability of section 80 IA(8) it is seen that it is not in dispute that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings has examined the Approved Valuer's Report who has given a detailed report of the market value

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

33. In so far as the Ld. CIT observing that Assessing Officer has failed to examine applicability of section 80 IA(8) it is seen that it is not in dispute that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings has examined the Approved Valuer's Report who has given a detailed report of the market value

SHIRDI STEEL RE-ROLLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUNCOLIM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Shirdi Steel Re-Rollers Ito, Ward-5, Margao Pvt. Ltd. Nagaraj Kale, Chartered Accountant, G-4, Vs. Kurtarkar Vihar, Opp: Costa Factory, Aquem, Margao, Goa-403601 Pan: Aakfs 3191 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Srinivas Nayak, Ca Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A),- 2, Panaji In Appeal No. Ita No. 597/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.06.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Ito, Ward-5, Margao, U/S 143(3) R.W.S 92Ca Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Additions Made By The Ld. Ao For Four Different Items For Which The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal For Non-Prosecution.

Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2) is not automatic and it is mandatory on the part of Ld. AO to record an objective satisfaction before resorting to computation of disallowance under rule 8D(2). Accordingly, we direct the Ld. AO to delete the disallowance of Rs. 33

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PANAJI., 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.No.62/Pan/2017 (A.Y.2012-13 ) Guala Closures(India) Vs. I T O Ward1(1), Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, D-1, Seasa Ghor, Edc, Patto, 20,Edc Complex, Panjim-403001. Patto, Goa. Panaji-403001, Goa Pan/Gir No.:Aaacg4447J Appellant .. Respondent

section 115(O) of the Act is applicable and not at the rate of tax applicable to nonresident share holders as specified in the relevant DTAA on such dividend income and accordingly this additional ground of appeal of the assesse is dismissed. 6. The Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business

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.

section 14A of the Act is not applicable since it has not earned any exempt income during the year. Ld. AO rejecting the contention of the assessee proceeded to compute the disallowance by applying rule 8D and thus made a disallowance of Rs.28,94,090/- under rule 8D(2)(ii) and of Rs.1,13,725/- under rule 3 Kineco

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI vs. SHRI LALJI PURUSHOTTAM BABHOYYA PATEL, ALTINHO

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

33,000.00 ii) Unconfirmed creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 iii) Depreciation disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of Rs.9,90,009/- was imposed. In appeal, the learned CIT(A), Panaji, sustained the additions made as well as the penalty imposed

SHRI LALJI PURSHOTTAM DABHOYYA PATEL,ALTINHO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

33,000.00 ii) Unconfirmed creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 iii) Depreciation disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of Rs.9,90,009/- was imposed. In appeal, the learned CIT(A), Panaji, sustained the additions made as well as the penalty imposed

MAVINKURVE PRIMARY FISHERIES SOCIETY LIMITED,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 283/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Mavinkurve Primary Fisheries, Vs Ito-Ward-1, Society Limited. Santerikrupa, . Bunder Road, Kaigaroad, Bhatkal, Habbuwada, Noth Kanara-581320, Karwar-581306, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No.Aabam8664L (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

section 80P of the Act and also the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions and judicial decisions and denied the claim of deduction u/sec80P of the act of Rs.13,33,673/- and similarly made 3 ITA. No. 283/PAN/2025 The Mavinkurve Primary Fisheries Society. disallowance

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

33[Provided further that no such deduction shall be made in respect of any dividends referred to in section 115-0.1 34[Explanation 1].—For the purposes of this section, where any interest or other sum as aforesaid is credited to any account, whether called "Interest payable account" or "Suspense account" or by any other name, in the books

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

33,256/- to tax as undisclosed income vide an assessment order dt. 29/09/2021 framed u/s 147 of the Act. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT invoked the provisions of 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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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