M/S SHIRAGAO PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELAGAVI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 80P(2)(d) deduction claim of Rs.9,35,731/- representing interest income derived from fixed deposits made with M/s. Belgavi District Cooperative Credit Bank, Belagavi for the reason that such receipts from cooperative societies is not eligible for the foregoing relief. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to vehement rival contentions and find no merit in the Revenue

THE BRAHMALING MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, BELGAUM

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and has not made separate disallowance of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks, cooperative society and scheduled bank aggregating to Rs.1,67,579/-. Finally the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations on the members information and dealt on the provisions and judicial decisions and denied the claim of deduction

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

SMT BERTHA D'COSTA,CAVELOSSIM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, MARGAO

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.158 &159/Pan/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri.Julio D Costa, Vs Ito-Ward-2, H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6709F) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. Smt.Bertha D Costa, Ito-Ward-2, Vs H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. . Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6748N) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Shrinivas Nayak.Ar Revenue By Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesses (Husband & Wife) Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A) -1 Panaji Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesses Are Governed By The Portuguese Civil Code & Provisions Of Section 5A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Aconsolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience

disallowance to that extent and since the assessee is governed by the Portuguese civil code 50% of Rs.10,71,948/- i.e Rs5,35,974/- was added and finally the A.O has assessed the total income of Rs14,14,494/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 31.08.2017. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed

SHRI JULIO D'COSTA,CAVELOSIM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, MARGAO

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.158 &159/Pan/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri.Julio D Costa, Vs Ito-Ward-2, H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6709F) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. Smt.Bertha D Costa, Ito-Ward-2, Vs H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. . Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6748N) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Shrinivas Nayak.Ar Revenue By Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesses (Husband & Wife) Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A) -1 Panaji Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesses Are Governed By The Portuguese Civil Code & Provisions Of Section 5A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Aconsolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience

disallowance to that extent and since the assessee is governed by the Portuguese civil code 50% of Rs.10,71,948/- i.e Rs5,35,974/- was added and finally the A.O has assessed the total income of Rs14,14,494/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 31.08.2017. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed

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-

35 of 39 M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 038/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 circulating commodity/inventory therefore brought in existence an asset falling within the ambarella of ‘capital asset’ of s/s 14 of section 2 of the Act and (c) the impugned sum of ₹16Crs paid by the appellant in the form of ‘stamp duty’ is in nature

THE SHIRODA PROGRESSIVE URBAN MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.272 & 273/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21 ) The Shiroda Progressive Urban Vs I T O, Multipurpose Cooperative National E Assessment . Society Limited, Centre, Shop.No.4, Opp: Police Station, Delhi. Shiroda Bhat, Ponda-403103.Goa Pan .No. Aabat7206P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

35,940/- and passed the order u/sec143(3) r.w.s143(3A)&143(3B) of the Act dated 05.4.2021. 5. Aggrieved by the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings

THE SHIRODA PROGRESSIVE URBAN MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.272 & 273/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21 ) The Shiroda Progressive Urban Vs I T O, Multipurpose Cooperative National E Assessment . Society Limited, Centre, Shop.No.4, Opp: Police Station, Delhi. Shiroda Bhat, Ponda-403103.Goa Pan .No. Aabat7206P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

35,940/- and passed the order u/sec143(3) r.w.s143(3A)&143(3B) of the Act dated 05.4.2021. 5. Aggrieved by the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings

SHRI BASAVESHWAR PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH EXAMBA,EXAMBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 NIPANI, NIPANI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Basaveshwar Prathamik Krishi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Examba, Dist.: Belgaum Pan: Aacas1122N . . . . . . . Appellant

35,900/- as deduction u/c VI-A of the Act. The said return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny wherein two additions were made viz; (1) disallowance of 52% interest received on investment with BDCC bank and (2) addition of profit from PDS. Thus, the consequential assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act was framed determining income

THE CANACONA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,CANACONA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, MARGAO

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

35,843/-. We thus proceed to adjudicate the assessee’s both these appeals by our common adjudication hereunder. 4. Now comes the sole dispute between the parties wherein both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s claim of sec.80P(2)(a)(i) deduction holding that it is not a cooperative society as well as the fact that

THE CANACONA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,CANACONA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, MARGAO

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

35,843/-. We thus proceed to adjudicate the assessee’s both these appeals by our common adjudication hereunder. 4. Now comes the sole dispute between the parties wherein both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s claim of sec.80P(2)(a)(i) deduction holding that it is not a cooperative society as well as the fact that

SADASHIV B DALAWAI,RAIBAG vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 307/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sadashiv B Dalawai At Post Shiragur Tal.: Raibag, Dist. Belgaum Pan : Bdrpd7066A . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer/Itd, Belgaum/New Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mrs Viramma Muranal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/10703226271(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 21/09/2022 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21[‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

35,24,163/- & ₹1,50,000/- made respectively u/s 80G and 80C u/c VI-A of the Act remained unsubstantiated by the assessee, the said claims were also treated as bogus and thus disallowed while framing the assessment to the best of judgement u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee assailed the aforestated addition & disallowances in appeal before

HERALD PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 160/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Herald Publication Pvt. Ltd. Ag-6, Campal Trade Centre, Opp. Taj Vivanta, H/H Mili, Panaji, Goa-403001 Pan : Aaach4580K . . . . . . . Appellant V/S National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent

disallowance & determination of income u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, a penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act were initiated. The assessee choose to remain silent. In the absence of rebuttal, the penalty proceeding ceased by imposing penalty equal to 50% of tax sought to have evaded by an order dt. 26/09/2023 u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved assessee

THE SANKHLI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,SANKHLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 058/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance of ₹51,56,366/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and income brought to tax u/h income from other sources of ₹3,39,677/-. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 The Sankhali Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO ITA Nos.058/PAN/2025 AY: 2014-15 3. Aggrieved assessee re-attempted to resolve the dispute in appeal before

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)

disallowance of community development and village welfare 7 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye and Bros. expenses and this ground of appeal allowed in favour of the assessee. 7.On the second disputed issue, the Ld.AR mentioned that the expenses on stamp duty and registration charges of renewal of mining lease, paid as part payment towards second renewal of mining lease for the period

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2006-2007 M/S Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. Salgaonkar Bhava, Altino, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aabcs8862N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Impugns The Order Dt. 20/03/2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Dealt With Order Dt. 20/12/2011 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2006-07.[‘Ay’]

disallowance of excess depreciation of 1,82,643/- . 2.4 Aggrieved assessee company preferred an appeal u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) on 25/01/2012 which was instituted for first appellate adjudication vide Appeal No : CIT(A)/PNJ/10310/2019-20 and dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) by an order dt. 17/03/2025. ITAT-Panaji Page

THE BRAMHING MULTI PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETYLTD,BELGAUM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELGAUM

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

35,837/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 19.11.2019. Subsequently the order u/secn143(3) of the Act was set aside u/sec263 of the Act vide order dated 30.03.2022 to make fresh assessment after examining the cash deposits during the demonetization period. The A.O as per the directions in the revision order u/sec263