BEIERSDORF INDIA (P) LTD.,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. At this juncture, we also take cognizance of submissions of the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that the issue of allowing bad debt is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of ITAT, Chennai Bench, Chennai in the case of M/s. Megh Sakariya International P. Ltd., Chennai

M/S NAVRATNA JEWELLERS & CO.,GOKAK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, GOKAK

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 154. Therefore, there is no justification in disallowing Interest of Rs.2,36,126/-. Instead Commissioner [Appeals] confirmed the disallowance

MUKTAR AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,VERNA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 41/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Goa Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, Sharma Shakti Bhavan, Edc Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa – 403 001 . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan:Aaacg7029G

36(1)(va) of the Act, both these assessee’s taken up the matter before first appellate authority and in the event of unsuccessful attempt, the assessees brought up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal against said disallowance alleging the action of both the tax authorities below as contra-legem. 6. It is an undisputed fact that

GOA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 41/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Goa Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, Sharma Shakti Bhavan, Edc Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa – 403 001 . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan:Aaacg7029G

36(1)(va) of the Act, both these assessee’s taken up the matter before first appellate authority and in the event of unsuccessful attempt, the assessees brought up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal against said disallowance alleging the action of both the tax authorities below as contra-legem. 6. It is an undisputed fact that

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 can be made u/s 40(a)(i). The AO during the course of the assessment proceedings noted that the Assessee has made payment amounting to Rs. 28,87,983/- to Hongkong and Singapore parties, Rs. 17,43,033/- to Zhao Long (Asia) Ltd. for monitoring, supervision of discharged cargo, draft survey, joint sampling of discharged cargo, photographs, sample preparation

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 can be made u/s 40(a)(i). The AO during the course of the assessment proceedings noted that the Assessee has made payment amounting to Rs. 28,87,983/- to Hongkong and Singapore parties, Rs. 17,43,033/- to Zhao Long (Asia) Ltd. for monitoring, supervision of discharged cargo, draft survey, joint sampling of discharged cargo, photographs, sample preparation

MAGSONS SUPERCENTRE,PANAJI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU (JURISDICTIONAL AO: CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 14/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Magsons Supercentre, 707, Dayanand Bandodkar Marg, Miramar, Panaji Goa – 403001. . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan: Aacfm4886A बिाम / Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru.

36(1)(va) of the Act, assessee carried the disallowance before first appellate authority and in the event of unsuccessful attempt, the assessees brought up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal against said disallowance alleging the action of both the tax authorities below as bad in law. 4. It is an undisputed fact that, the TAR filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 a sum of Rs.2.75 Crores of interest was disallowed. 2. The first

MRS VINI P. KENI,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), 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. Nos. 112/Pan/2022 (A.Y. 2014-15 ) Vini Prasad Keni, Vs Ito-Ward-1(3), Keni Building, Aayakar Bhavan, . Dr.Dada Vaidhya Road, Panaji-403001, Panjim-403001, Goa. Goa. . Pan .No. Adppk9767N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.E.Robinson.Ar Revenue By Sri Narender Reddy.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/ Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised

36,745/- in respect of various expenses. The A.O dealt on the nature of expenses at Para7.3 of the order and was not satisfied with the claim , which is not incurred for the business purpose and disallowed the expenses u/sec37(1) of the Act. Finally the A.O has assessed the total income Of Rs.8,31,650/- after setting of business

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

disallowance is only in context of Residents [u/s 40a(ia)]. Further this benefit of proviso to section 201(1) is available subject to furnishing by the deductor a certificate from the accountant in Form 26. No such certificate was filed either before the AO or during the course of the appellate proceedings. Jurisdictional Tribunal in case of Intel Tech India

THE ORGAON URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MARCELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.242/Pan/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Orgaon Urban Co- Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Panaji, Operative Credit Society Goa. Limited, Deulwada, Marcela, Goa- 403107. Pan : Aaaat6227D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhu Gawde Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 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 [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 29.05.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Learned Cit(A) Has Not Appreciated Appellants Submission That Though The Appellants Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass Of Deduction Under Chapter Via & Low Income & High Loans / Advances / Investments The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Examining Other Issues & Has Wrongly Travelled Beyond His Permitted Ambit In Making The Disallowances U/S. 40(A)(Ia) & Sec. 36(1)(V). 2) The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Interest Earned On Statutory Investments Of Statutory Funds In The Apex Bank(Cooperative

section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194A of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance on account of contribution made to Provident Fund (PF) of Rs.41,837/- u/s 36

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

36,096/- to co-operative societies without TDS is liable to be disallowed societies without TDS is liable to be disallowed @30% u/s 40(a)(ia) ignoring the @30% u/s 40(a)(ia) ignoring the provisions of section

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

disallowance overlooking the submissions and the judicial decisions and the Assessing Officer has ignored the factual aspects and wrongly denied the claim. The Ld.AR mentioned that the appellate authority has observed that the assessee is entitled to claim of benefit under section 80P of the Page 8 of 36

THE ADARSH MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1-(2) , BELAGAVI, 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

disallowance overlooking the submissions and the judicial decisions and the Assessing Officer has ignored the factual aspects and wrongly denied the claim. The Ld.AR mentioned that the appellate authority has observed that the assessee is entitled to claim of benefit under section 80P of the Page 8 of 36

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

disallowance overlooking the submissions and the judicial decisions and the Assessing Officer has ignored the factual aspects and wrongly denied the claim. The Ld.AR mentioned that the appellate authority has observed that the assessee is entitled to claim of benefit under section 80P of the Page 8 of 36

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

disallowance overlooking the submissions and the judicial decisions and the Assessing Officer has ignored the factual aspects and wrongly denied the claim. The Ld.AR mentioned that the appellate authority has observed that the assessee is entitled to claim of benefit under section 80P of the Page 8 of 36

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

disallowance overlooking the submissions and the judicial decisions and the Assessing Officer has ignored the factual aspects and wrongly denied the claim. The Ld.AR mentioned that the appellate authority has observed that the assessee is entitled to claim of benefit under section 80P of the Page 8 of 36

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

disallowance overlooking the submissions and the judicial decisions and the Assessing Officer has ignored the factual aspects and wrongly denied the claim. The Ld.AR mentioned that the appellate authority has observed that the assessee is entitled to claim of benefit under section 80P of the Page 8 of 36