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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

4. Sri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for revenue/appellant in ITA No.170/2019 would contend that even the disallowance made by the AO under section 14A r/w section 8(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules for a sum of Rs. 14,88,870/- by holding that there was no exempted income and as such disallowance could not have been made even

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

4. Sri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for revenue/appellant in ITA No.170/2019 would contend that even the disallowance made by the AO under section 14A r/w section 8(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules for a sum of Rs. 14,88,870/- by holding that there was no exempted income and as such disallowance could not have been made even

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/-.

37,35,560/- 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/-.

37,35,560/- 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

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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

SHRI BASAVESHWAR URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, 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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

THE MARATHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, BELGAUM

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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT LTD BHOJ,BHOJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIPANI

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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

VIVIDODDSHESHA PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT SOUDATTI,SOUDATTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, BELGAUM, BELGAUM

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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MARDOL, PONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT, NEAC, DELHI

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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MARDOL, PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI, GOA

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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

SHREE BASVANNA MAHADEV CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6, BELGAUM

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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MARDOL, PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

HAVYAKA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction

SHRI JAI JINENDRA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 NIPANI, 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

4) of the Act clearly omits co-operative banks from the benefits of availing deduction allowed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the AO concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the same was disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction