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

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

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

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

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

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax levying penalty u/s. 271C of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant is not liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194C on the harvesting charges since the same formed part

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

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax levying penalty u/s. 271C of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant is not liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194C on the harvesting charges since the same formed part

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

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax levying penalty u/s. 271C of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant is not liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194C on the harvesting charges since the same formed part

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

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax levying penalty u/s. 271C of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant is not liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194C on the harvesting charges since the same formed part

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

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in upholding the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax levying penalty u/s. 271C of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant is not liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194C on the harvesting charges since the same formed part

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

2)(iii) 5 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. and not on the basis of the average of total value of investments appeared in the audited balance sheet of the appellant. 4. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO 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

2)(iii) 5 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. and not on the basis of the average of total value of investments appeared in the audited balance sheet of the appellant. 4. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO in the sum of Rs.1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), , BELGAVI vs. SHIVA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, BELGAVI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance made by the A.O. observing that the income earned from persons other than its regular members would not be eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and such income earned from business with persons other than the regular members would be taxable as income from business. Similar issue was placed for adjudication

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

2)(iii) for ₹8,18,598/- towards ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 23 M/s Chowgule and Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd ITA No.: 390/PAN/2017, AY : 2012-2013, AABCC5595J administrative expense computed @0.5% of average investment deployed. The said disallowance was also imputed by addition into the computation of book profit under the MAT provisions of section 115JB. 6.4 Secondly, the appellant

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

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

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

2,81,03,292/-, which consisted of business loss of Rs. 1,16,41,586/- and long term capital loss of Rs. 1,64,61,706/-. The assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) of the Act after making disallowance of unpaid statutory liability u/s 43B amounting to Rs. 71,297/- and disallowance u/s 14A amounting

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