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

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

REMOTE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD,ALTO BETIM vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.34 & 35/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 To 2019-20 Remote Software Solutions Vs. Assessing Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(4), Panaji. H.No.1661, Near Tarun Bharat, Alto Betim, Penha De Franca-Goa- 403521. Pan : Aadcr0144G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 16.03.2022 For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.34/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

section 139(1) of the Act. On appeal before the NFAC, the NFAC confirmed the said disallowance. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue relates to the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.40,29,887/- made

REMOTE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD,ALTO BETIM vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.34 & 35/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 To 2019-20 Remote Software Solutions Vs. Assessing Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(4), Panaji. H.No.1661, Near Tarun Bharat, Alto Betim, Penha De Franca-Goa- 403521. Pan : Aadcr0144G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 16.03.2022 For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.34/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

section 139(1) of the Act. On appeal before the NFAC, the NFAC confirmed the said disallowance. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue relates to the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.40,29,887/- made

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(1)(iv) and Rs.825/- u/s 36(1)(va

SIDDHANTH EX - SERVICEMEN SECURITY SERVICES,VASCO vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of providing security services in and around Goa. The assessee filed return of income on 14-10-2018. The CPC, Bangalore disallowed an amount of Rs.36