RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

disallowed the harvesting/ transporting expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and treated the same

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT., BAGALKOT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

disallowed the harvesting/ transporting expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and treated the same

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

disallowed the harvesting/ transporting expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and treated the same

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

disallowed the harvesting/ transporting expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and treated the same

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

disallowed the harvesting/ transporting expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and treated the same

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

disallowed the harvesting/ transporting expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and treated the same

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

disallowed the harvesting/ transporting expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and treated the same

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI vs. M/S JAY RAM ORE CARRIERS, VASCO

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.227/Pan/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vs. M/S. Jay Ram Ore Goa. Carriers, 2Nd Floor, Sunflower Appts, Opp. St. Andrew Church, Vasco, Goa. Pan : Aaffj0752R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Assessee By : Shri R. D. Onkar Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Respondent-Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Operation Of Barge Of Contract. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed By The Appellant Firm On 29.07.2014 Declaring Total Income

disallowed the excess remuneration paid to the partners of Rs.1,38,95,958/- by holding that the remuneration is in excess of amount laid down under the provisions of section 40

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

40 under section 4I(I) of the Act when no remission or cessation of the liability has been expressly granted by the concerned creditor and that the said liability duly appeared in the audited financials of the appellant company for the year ended 31.03.2009. 5. ⁠The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter or vary any of the Grounds

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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 40(a)(ia) will apply and the claim of assessee will fail. Alternatively, if it is found that the appellant is not having nominal members, then this ground will succeed. The AO may verify and give effect to the order accordingly.” while allowing the ground "Disallowance

M/S VEEJAY FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

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

disallowed the claim invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.(iii) the A.O found that the assesse

SHRI VENANCIO GONSALVES,CHIMBEL, GOA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 40(a) of I.T. Act inserted by the Finance Act 201 2 w.e.f. 01.04.2013. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Panaji Goa while confirming the action of the assessing officer of disallowing

FOMENTO KARNATAKA MINING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH FOMENTO RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pan/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Fomento Karnataka Mining Vs. Jcit, Margao Range, Company Private Limited, Margao, Goa. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Private Limited), 102, 1St Floor, Kamat Metropolis-I, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa- 403001. Pan : Aaacf7487K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 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)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 27.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Trading In The Iron Ore. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.26,40,77,220/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) At A Total Income Of Rs.26,63,57,955/-. While Doing So, The Assessing Officer Made Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.15,49,787/-, Disallowance On Account Of Sundry Creditors Extracting As Fictitious Of Rs.7,30,948/-. 3. Being Aggrieved, An Appeal Was Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A) Contending That No Disallowance U/S 14A Is Required To Be Made In The Absence Of Any Expenditure Incurred To Earn The Exempt Income. It Was Also Contended That No Addition On Account Of Outstanding Creditors Is Required To Be Made, As The Credits Represent The Opening

40,77,220/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 30.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.26,63,57,955/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made disallowance

THE SANKHLI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,SANKHLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 058/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance of ₹51,56,366/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and income brought to tax u/h income from other sources of ₹3,39,677/-. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 The Sankhali Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO ITA Nos.058/PAN/2025 AY: 2014-15 3. Aggrieved assessee re-attempted to resolve the dispute in appeal before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI vs. THE OLD GOA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, OLD GOA

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

disallowance of deduction under section 40(a)(ia) on interest paid to members. 3. Appellant craves leave to amend or alter

TUMKUR MINERALS PVT. LTD,VASCO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallowed u/sec. 40(a). The assessee company submitted that the payments were made for the services rendered outside India. The above income is neither received nor deemed to have been received in India nor accrues or arises in India. Hence, it falls outside the purview of sec.5 of the Act. The assessee also stated that its case is covered within

BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HARUGERI, BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), BELGAVI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and concluding that the Assessee is a Primary Co-operative Bank within the meaning of Part V of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. 2 ITA.No.14/PAN/2019 2. That the Authorities failed to appreciate that the assessee is not governed by Reserve Bank of India