PRIME MINERAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH FOMENTO RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED),PANAJI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 003/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) 102, 1St Fl. Kamat Metropolis-1, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa-403001. . . . . . . .Appellant Pan : Aadcp1647E V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . Respondent Range-1, Panaji, Goa

section 14A of the Act vis- à-vis determination of such amount of disallowance u/c (iii) of rule 8D(2) of IT Rules. In view thereof, we do find any merit in the contention of the appellant and flaw in the action of tax authorities in invoking the former provisions for disallowance of expenditure. As a result, the contentions

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

37 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. "9. The legal proposition canvassed by the learned counsel, however, does no longer hold good in view of retrospective amendment with effect from 1-6-1976 in section 9 brought out by the Finance Act, 2010. Under the amended Explanation to section 9(1), as it exists

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

37 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. "9. The legal proposition canvassed by the learned counsel, however, does no longer hold good in view of retrospective amendment with effect from 1-6-1976 in section 9 brought out by the Finance Act, 2010. Under the amended Explanation to section 9(1), as it exists

ZUARI MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD.,GOA vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Zuari Management Services Ltd. (Erstwhile Zuari Infrastructure & Developers Ltd., Formerly Zuari Sez Ltd.) Jai Kisaan Nagar, Zuari Nagar, Goa. Pan: Aaacz2903Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Salil Kapoor [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar N [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

section 35D of the Act was allowed for the said AY. 3. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the A.O. has erred on facts and in law in disallowing the interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 3,56,51,678/-u/s 36(1)(iii) r.w.s. 37

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-

37(1) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. While disallowing so the Ld. AO treated the stamp duty payment as consideration for acquiring mining rights being a capital asset within the meaning of section

VGM EXPORT,VASCO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 114/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vgm Export Suvarn Bandekar Building, Swatantra Path, Vasco, Goa Pan : Aaafv6197P . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr P B Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2025

37(1) of the Act as revenue in nature. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 16 VGM Export Vs JCIT, Margao ITA Nos.114/PAN/2023 AY: 2010-11 10. Before we hit the ground of adjudication on aforestated factual matrix, let set the dispute in clear terms. There is much less dispute that the impugned disallowance relates to forex fluctuation loss which

HARDESH ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,MARGAO vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hardesh Ores Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Villa Flores Da Silva, Vs. Margao, Goa. Erasmo Carvalho Street, Margao, Goa-403601. (Pan: Aaach4515J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1 Vide

section 14A of the Act is directed to be deleted. We thus, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the disallowance of Rs.2,64,195/-. Grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus, allowed. 8. In respect of addition made u/s. 41(1) of the Act towards cessation of liability amounting to Rs.7,37

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)

1) is pari-materia of section 2(11) to cover both tangible and intangible assets for depreciation. 37. Section 32 of the Act on the other hand, allows a deduction for depreciation on tangible (buildings, furniture & fixture and Plant & machinery) as well as on intangible assets (know-how, patents, copyrights, licenses, franchises) owned and used for business or professional purposes

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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance is erroneous. Hence, he prays for substantial question of law as formulated in the appeal memorandum (ITA 170/2019) be formulated, adjudicated and answered in favour of assessee. 5. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records in general and order passed by tribunal in particular it is clearly noticeable that Clause (i) of section 92BA

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance is erroneous. Hence, he prays for substantial question of law as formulated in the appeal memorandum (ITA 170/2019) be formulated, adjudicated and answered in favour of assessee. 5. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records in general and order passed by tribunal in particular it is clearly noticeable that Clause (i) of section 92BA

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

disallowance of capital expenditure of ₹20,70,58,100/- u/s 37(1) of the Act as, a sum paid to State Govt. for conversion of land for enduring period of 20 years. 6. Aggrieved assessee filed separate appeals before Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) and agitated the aforementioned disallowances/additions made in former twin assessments but remained unsuccessful. Aggrieved by the ex-parte

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

disallowance of capital expenditure of ₹20,70,58,100/- u/s 37(1) of the Act as, a sum paid to State Govt. for conversion of land for enduring period of 20 years. 6. Aggrieved assessee filed separate appeals before Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) and agitated the aforementioned disallowances/additions made in former twin assessments but remained unsuccessful. Aggrieved by the ex-parte

SHIRDI STEEL RE-ROLLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUNCOLIM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Shirdi Steel Re-Rollers Ito, Ward-5, Margao Pvt. Ltd. Nagaraj Kale, Chartered Accountant, G-4, Vs. Kurtarkar Vihar, Opp: Costa Factory, Aquem, Margao, Goa-403601 Pan: Aakfs 3191 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Srinivas Nayak, Ca Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A),- 2, Panaji In Appeal No. Ita No. 597/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.06.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Ito, Ward-5, Margao, U/S 143(3) R.W.S 92Ca Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Additions Made By The Ld. Ao For Four Different Items For Which The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal For Non-Prosecution.

37 donation debited to profit Rs. 44,550/- and loss account iv) Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) Rs. 33,844/- 5. The assessee has placed on record paper book containing 71 pages along with detailed written submission to substantiate its claim in respect of addition/disallowance made by the Ld. AO. The four additions/disallowance made

M/S AHILIABAI SARDESSAI,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 378 & 379/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S. Ahilibai Sardessai 301, Lotus Court, M.G. Road, St. Inez Junction, Panaji-Goa-403 001 Pan : Aagfa9044G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji-Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri D.E. Robinson, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :22.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022

disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, thus, rejected the aforesaid claim of the assessee. Also, the claim of the assessee that the Assessing Officer had failed to establish nexus between the exempt dividend income and the expenditure incurred did not find favour with M/s. Ahilibai Sardessai Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1) the CIT(Appeals), as he was of the view that

M/S AHILIABAI SARDESSAI,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 378 & 379/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S. Ahilibai Sardessai 301, Lotus Court, M.G. Road, St. Inez Junction, Panaji-Goa-403 001 Pan : Aagfa9044G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji-Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri D.E. Robinson, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :22.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022

disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, thus, rejected the aforesaid claim of the assessee. Also, the claim of the assessee that the Assessing Officer had failed to establish nexus between the exempt dividend income and the expenditure incurred did not find favour with M/s. Ahilibai Sardessai Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1) the CIT(Appeals), as he was of the view that

JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs. M/S WALLACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD, PANAJI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 37(1) of the Act. 5. Whether on facts of the case, the CIT(A), Panaji-1 erred in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC) to state that fluctuation in the rate of exchange with respect to loans taken

JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs. M/S WALLACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD, PANAJI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 37(1) of the Act. 5. Whether on facts of the case, the CIT(A), Panaji-1 erred in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC) to state that fluctuation in the rate of exchange with respect to loans taken

SURAJDATTA SAGUN MORAJKAR,NERUL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI GOA, PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Surajdatta Sagun Morajkar C/O. Sun Estate Developers, Next To Sal De Goa, Bhatti Waddo, Bardez, Goa-403114 Pan : Aempm7614J . . . . . . . Appellant

section 5A of the Act was for the year under consideration engaged in the business of real estate development and construction in the name & style of ‘Sun Estate Developer’ and also a partner in M/s ‘SM Venture.’ The assessee filed his return of income on 30/03/2018 declaring total income at ₹4,47,72,090/- which was subjected to scrutiny