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

41. Having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance

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

41. Having regard to the language of section 14A(2) of the Act, read with rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo motu disallowance

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

BARDC BANK,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.296 & 297/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Ito-Ward-1, Vs Pld Bank, Main Road, Santerikrupa, . Uttara Kannada, Kaigaroad, Bhatkal S.O. Habbuwada, Karnataka-581320. Karwar-581306, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and has not made separate disallowance of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks and other banks aggregating to 3 ITA. No. 296&297/PAN/2024 BARDC Bank. Rs.1,87,45.060/-. Finally the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations on the members information and dealt on the provisions and judicial decisions

BARDC BANK,BHATKAL vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.296 & 297/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Ito-Ward-1, Vs Pld Bank, Main Road, Santerikrupa, . Uttara Kannada, Kaigaroad, Bhatkal S.O. Habbuwada, Karnataka-581320. Karwar-581306, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and has not made separate disallowance of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks and other banks aggregating to 3 ITA. No. 296&297/PAN/2024 BARDC Bank. Rs.1,87,45.060/-. Finally the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations on the members information and dealt on the provisions and judicial decisions

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

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

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

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

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

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

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

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

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

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

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

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

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

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

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

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

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

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

SHRI JAI JINENDRA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. 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

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

VARDHAMAN URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM 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

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

HAVYAKA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 KARWAR, 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

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

KAIGA PROJECT EMPLOYEES THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY,KARWAR 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

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into