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

34,020/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 19.05.2011. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) dated 24.08.2011 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee’s Authorised Representative appeared before the A.O. and filed

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

34,020/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 19.05.2011. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) dated 24.08.2011 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee’s Authorised Representative appeared before the A.O. and filed

SHRI BASAVESHWAR PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGHA N SUNADHOLI,SUNADHOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GOKAK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 030/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Basaveshwar Prathamik Krishi Pattin Sahakari Sangha At Post: Sundholi, Ta.: Sundholi Dist. Belagavi.-591310 Pan : Aahas0468A . . . . . . . Appellant

section 80AC of the Act, however there was complete absence of authority vested with the Ld. CPC to carry out the disallowance u/s 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned action of denial of 80P deduction to the appellant by the Ld. CPC was barred by jurisdiction, hence unlawful. And in the absence of any explicit power

ALLAMAPRABHU VUSS NI, KALLOLI,KALLOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 063/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Allamaprabhu Vuss Niyamit Kalloli 09, Allamaprabhu Vuss Niyamit Kalloli, Kalloli So Dist. Belagavi. Pan : Aafaa8818E . . . . . . . Appellant

section 80AC of the Act, however there was complete absence of authority vested with the Ld. CPC to carry out the disallowance u/s 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned action of denial of 80P deduction to the appellant by the Ld. CPC was barred by jurisdiction, hence unlawful. And in the absence of any explicit power

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

34. Now, coming to the issue of applicability of provision of section 14A, the assessee before the Assessing Officer has filed all the relevant details for investment made in mutual funds on which assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.77,65,278/-. It has also been brought on record before the Assessing Officer that entire money invested in the mutual

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

34. Now, coming to the issue of applicability of provision of section 14A, the assessee before the Assessing Officer has filed all the relevant details for investment made in mutual funds on which assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.77,65,278/-. It has also been brought on record before the Assessing Officer that entire money invested in the mutual

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/-.

34) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceeding, ld. AO noted that assessee has not disallowed any amount towards expenses incurred in relation to earning the said exempted income. Ld. AO show caused the assessee to explain as to why a disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should not be made, in response to which the assessee

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), 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.344/Pan/2017 (A.Y.2013-14 ) Guala Closures(India) Vs. I T O Ward1(1), Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, D-1, Sesa Ghor, Edc, Patto, 20,Edc Complex, Panjim-403001. Patto, Goa. Panaji-403001, Goa Pan/Gir No.:Aaacg4447J Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10(34) of the Act, since the burden of taxation has been shifted to the company distributing the dividend, from the shareholder. While the DDT is a tax payable by the company, and not the shareholders, in pith and substance, it is a tax on dividends that is income of the shareholders. 59. We must also note that BFAR

PRIYADARSHANI MAHILA CO-OP CR. SOCIETY LTD,BELAGAVI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 032/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Priyadarshani Mahila Co-Op. Society Ltd. At Post: Kognoli, Ta.: Nippani Dist. Belagavi. Pan : Aabap2582L . . . . . . . Appellant

section 80AC of the Act, however there was complete absence of authority vested with the Ld. CPC to carry out the disallowance u/s 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned action of denial of 80P deduction to the appellant by the Ld. CPC was barred by jurisdiction, hence unlawful. And in the absence of any explicit power

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), PANAJI., PANAJI vs. M/S ALCON RESORT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., PANAJI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S Alcon Resort Holdings Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Alcon Chambers, Edc Complex, Patto Plaza, Vs. D.B. Road, Panaji, Panaji Goa Pan: Aabca6880E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Y.V. Raviraj (Dr) Assessee By : Shri M.C. Naniwadekar (Advocate) Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2019

section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the department has not accepted the identical order passed by the CIT (A) in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is liable to be set aside

GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGRAWAL (HUF),MARGAO vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Gangadhar Narsingdas Assistant Commissioner Of Agrawal (Huf) Income-Tax, Circle-1, 1St Floor, Anand Bhavan, Vs. Margao-Goa. Old Station Rod, Margao- Goa 403601 (Pan: Aabhg4804R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022 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), Panaji-1 Vide Ita No. 42/Mrg/2014-15 Dated 16.03.2018 For A.Y. 2011-12 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit, Circle-1, Margao, Goa Dated 25.03.2014. 2. Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

section 14A of the Act, we direct the Ld. AO to delete the disallowance of Rs.10,46,911/-so made. Accordingly, grounds of appeal are allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced under Rule 34

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

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 of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income

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

section 115JB of the Act, and same can find force in the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Ajanta Pharma Ltd Vs CIT” reported in 327 ITR 305 (SC) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in “Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT”, & “CIT Vs Gokaldas Images (P) Ltd.” reported at 429 ITR 526 (Kar), and a similar view

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 for its applicability prospectively or retrospectively in a case where no exempt income is earned, we note that subsequent to the conclusion of the instant hearing, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai held it to be prospectively applicable in the case of ACIT Vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 2521-2527

GOA CARBON LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), PANAJI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowed pursuant to Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC is the income from hiring out plant and machinery which is independent of exports. The substantial questions of law as have been framed, having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair (supra) and this High Court's decision in Sesa Goa (supra) and further

VEERENDRA BASAVARAJ KOUJALAGI,BELAGAVI vs. PCIT HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 103/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi C/O. Shri Laxmi Complex, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan : Agrpk3086D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1063626985(1) Dt. 29/03/2024 Passed By Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which Sought To Revise Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/04/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

disallowance of expenditure in earning such exempt income in terms of section 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of IT-Rules, 1962, in the light of former judicial precedents (supra), the action of Ld. PCIT in holding the order of assessment as erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of revenue is very well sustainable in law. Ergo we find no infirmity

HARDESH ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,MARGAO vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hardesh Ores Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Villa Flores Da Silva, Vs. Margao, Goa. Erasmo Carvalho Street, Margao, Goa-403601. (Pan: Aaach4515J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate 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 Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1 Vide

section 14A of the Act is directed to be deleted. We thus, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the disallowance of Rs.2,64,195/-. Grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus, allowed. 8. In respect of addition made u/s. 41(1) of the Act towards cessation of liability amounting to Rs.7,37,650/-, considering

THE PONDA EDUCATION SOCIETY EMPLOYEE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), PANAJI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowing its section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.93,846/- deduction, 80P(2)(d) deduction of Rs.4,68,206/-; respectively during the course of assessment hearing dated 20.12.2017 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s order. 2 ITA.No.132/PAN/2019 The Ponda Education Society Employee Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Ponda Goa. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to vehement

THE KHANAPUR vs. S SANGH LTD,BELGAUMVS.PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

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

disallowing the claim of the appellant U/s. 80P(2)(d). Alternatively, since the said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of the appellant society, the same qualifies for deduction U/s. 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (c) The ratio of Totgar Cooperative Sales Society Ltd Vs ITO cannot be applied to the appellant