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 AO of a sum of Rs.81,16,257/- incurred on repair and renovation of two temples situated in mining areas by holding that they do not come under the purview of current 6 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. repairs. The whole of the addition in the sum of Rs.1

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 AO of a sum of Rs.81,16,257/- incurred on repair and renovation of two temples situated in mining areas by holding that they do not come under the purview of current 6 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. repairs. The whole of the addition in the sum of Rs.1

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 attracts in this case. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) also erred in considering the fact that revenue has not accepted the order of the CIT (A), Panaji for A.Y. 2012-13 giving relief in respect of disallowance u/s 14A and has preferred appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Panaji. Hence, disallowance u/s 14A is rightly made

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance under section 14A is not automatic whenever there is any kind of exempt income. It has to be seen with regard to nature of expenses debited and whether any expenditure can be calculated. Thus, simple observation that AO should have examine the applicability of 14A without any specific finding or examination of facts and material on record

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance under section 14A is not automatic whenever there is any kind of exempt income. It has to be seen with regard to nature of expenses debited and whether any expenditure can be calculated. Thus, simple observation that AO should have examine the applicability of 14A without any specific finding or examination of facts and material on record

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

35) of the I.T. Act. 6) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in interpreting that Section 14A mandates maintenance of separate books of account relating to investments. He has also erred in observing that the books of accounts and other documentary evidence relating to the investment and expenditure was not produced before the Learned Assessing Officer. 7) The Learned

SHRI NITIN A SHIRGURKAR,BELGAVI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallow a sum of Rs.30,086/- i.e. 1,00,288 X 30%= Rs.30,086/ i.e. 1,00,288 X 30%= Rs.30,086/- as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which has not been provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which has not been done. 3. On perusal of records, the following observations have

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

PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,SALAPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 1(5), 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

M/S SIDDHARTH NATURAL FOOD RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,KUNDAIM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.187/Pan/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Siddharth Natural Food Resources Private Limited, Plot No.83, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Panaji- 403001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aalcs5815K बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Panaji. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Panaji (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Is Void-Ab-Initio. 2) The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. 3) The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.3,35,25,800/- Made By The Ao, Whereas The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80Ib Was Only Rs.50,00,194/-. 4) The Ld Ao Has Erred In Disallowing The Profit As Per Profit & Loss Account Of Rs.3,35,25,800/- Whereas The Profit As Per The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Only Rs.50,00,194/- Which Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80Ib In The Return Of Income Filled By The Assessee. Hence The Maximum Addition By Way Of Disallowance Of Assessee Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ib Can Be Only Rs.50,00,194/-.

35,25,800/- denying the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act on the ground that (i) the assessee had not been engaged the process of producing vegetables or fruits as it is engaged in the business of pasteurized of milk and its sale; (ii) the business of dairy products was eligible for deduction under sub-section

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

35[Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the obligation to comply with sub-section (1) and to make deduction thereunder applies and shall be deemed to have always applied and extends and shall be deemed to have always extended to all persons, resident or non-resident, whether or not the non-resident person

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/-.

35,250/- and book profit computed u/s 115JB of Rs. 6,24,94,092/-. The last revised return of income was filed on 28.03.2015 reporting a loss of Rs. 4,37,39,018/- and book profit u/s 115JB of Rs. 6,24,94,092/-. During the year, assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 1,08,793 which was claimed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - (1), PANAJI vs. M/S GOA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED , PANAJI

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

35,560/- u/s. 80IA of the Act and reported a total income of Rs.4,02,18,620/- in its return filed for the year. Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act by assessing the total income at Rs.7,39,54,180/-, wherein a disallowance u/s. 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs.3

GOA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED.,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), , PANAJI

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

35,560/- u/s. 80IA of the Act and reported a total income of Rs.4,02,18,620/- in its return filed for the year. Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act by assessing the total income at Rs.7,39,54,180/-, wherein a disallowance u/s. 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs.3

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Nota bene, as regards to appellants claim that, the payments to harvesting contractors were made on behalf of the farmers was controverted by the Ld. ITO-TDS with following categorical findings as laid at Para 3 of page 3 of the assessment order; “The claim of the deductor that payment

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Nota bene, as regards to appellants claim that, the payments to harvesting contractors were made on behalf of the farmers was controverted by the Ld. ITO-TDS with following categorical findings as laid at Para 3 of page 3 of the assessment order; “The claim of the deductor that payment

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Nota bene, as regards to appellants claim that, the payments to harvesting contractors were made on behalf of the farmers was controverted by the Ld. ITO-TDS with following categorical findings as laid at Para 3 of page 3 of the assessment order; “The claim of the deductor that payment

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Nota bene, as regards to appellants claim that, the payments to harvesting contractors were made on behalf of the farmers was controverted by the Ld. ITO-TDS with following categorical findings as laid at Para 3 of page 3 of the assessment order; “The claim of the deductor that payment

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Nota bene, as regards to appellants claim that, the payments to harvesting contractors were made on behalf of the farmers was controverted by the Ld. ITO-TDS with following categorical findings as laid at Para 3 of page 3 of the assessment order; “The claim of the deductor that payment