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

section 9." 6. It is an undisputed fact that the Finance Act, 2010 received the assent of the President on 8.5.2010 and all the payments have been made by the Assessee to the non-resident party prior to receiving of assent of the President making the retrospective amendment by adding explanation to Sec. 9(1). At the time when

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

section 9." 6. It is an undisputed fact that the Finance Act, 2010 received the assent of the President on 8.5.2010 and all the payments have been made by the Assessee to the non-resident party prior to receiving of assent of the President making the retrospective amendment by adding explanation to Sec. 9(1). At the time when

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI vs. SHRI LALJI PURUSHOTTAM BABHOYYA PATEL, ALTINHO

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of Rs.9,90,009/- was imposed. In appeal, the learned CIT(A), Panaji, sustained the additions made as well as the penalty imposed by the AO. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on various decisions

SHRI LALJI PURSHOTTAM DABHOYYA PATEL,ALTINHO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of Rs.9,90,009/- was imposed. In appeal, the learned CIT(A), Panaji, sustained the additions made as well as the penalty imposed by the AO. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on various decisions

SMT SUNANDA ANIL SALVE,NIPANI, BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

45, and the capital gain is taxable on 'transfer of a capital asset1. Precisely, this section prescribes that 'any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to tax under the head capital gains and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which

M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (SALT) PVT. LTD,MORMUGAO vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 390/Pan/2017 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S Chowgule & Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd., Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa – 403803. Pan: Aabcc 5595 J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Ms Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull Am; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Panaji-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 09/10/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Tousled Out Of Order Of Assessment Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-2, Margoa [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 27/07/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 23

Disallowance of the provision for leave encashment: 1) The learned CIT(A) has erred on fact and in law in upholding the order of the Learned Assessing Officer in making addition of the leave encashment amount to the book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act by holding the same to be a provision for liabilities other than ascertained

M/S DEMPO RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dempo Resorts Acit, Circle-2, Margao Private Limited Empressa Dempo, Mala Vs. Fontainhas, Panaji, Goa – 403 001. Pan: Aaccd 2126 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Naik, Accountant Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 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 Ita No. 390/Cit(A)/Pnj-1/2014-15 Re-Numbered As Ita No. 342/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 23.01.2018 Against The Order Passed By Acit, Circle-1(1), Panaji U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 29.12.2014. 2. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In The Present Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

45 (Del). The assessee further submitted that the impugned year is assessment year 2012-13 whereas the amendment provided in section 40(a)(ia) in respect of second proviso is applicable from assessment year 2013-14 and it cannot be taken to be effective retrospectively. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that Hon’ble Supreme Court had admitted SLP filed

SHRI MALLIKARJUN URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. ITO WARD 1 BELGAUM, BELGAUM

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and has not made separate disallowance of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks, and scheduled bank aggregating to Rs.15,78,585/-. Finally the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations on the members information and dealt on the provisions and judicial decisions and denied the claim of deduction u/sec80P2

THE ADARSH CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED.,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), BELAGAVI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.26 To 28/Pan/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Adarsh Co-Op. Credit Ito, Ward-1(2), Society Ltd. Bagalkot Vs. A-P: Jugul, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum-591252. Pan: Aaaas 5616 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Belagavi In Ita No. Cit(A)/Bgm/10349/2015-16, Cit(A)/Bgm/10518/2014-15 & Cit(A)/Bgm/10136/2015-16 All Dated 27.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Ward-1(2), Belgaum U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2018 & For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.09.2014 & 24.08.2015. 2. The Only Issue In These Three Appeals Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds In All The Appeals & Hence, We Take The Facts & Grounds From Ita No. The Adarsh Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 26/Pan/2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Relevant Grounds Raised By Assessee Are Reads As Under:

disallowing the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, in respect of income earned from associate/nominal members. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that…… i. the Citizen’s case is distinguishable on facts as in the present case the dealings are with members and there are no dealings with public at large. ii. regular, associate and nominal

THE ADARSH CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED.,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), BELAGAVI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.26 To 28/Pan/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Adarsh Co-Op. Credit Ito, Ward-1(2), Society Ltd. Bagalkot Vs. A-P: Jugul, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum-591252. Pan: Aaaas 5616 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Belagavi In Ita No. Cit(A)/Bgm/10349/2015-16, Cit(A)/Bgm/10518/2014-15 & Cit(A)/Bgm/10136/2015-16 All Dated 27.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Ward-1(2), Belgaum U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2018 & For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.09.2014 & 24.08.2015. 2. The Only Issue In These Three Appeals Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds In All The Appeals & Hence, We Take The Facts & Grounds From Ita No. The Adarsh Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 26/Pan/2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Relevant Grounds Raised By Assessee Are Reads As Under:

disallowing the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, in respect of income earned from associate/nominal members. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that…… i. the Citizen’s case is distinguishable on facts as in the present case the dealings are with members and there are no dealings with public at large. ii. regular, associate and nominal

THE ADARSH CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED.,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), BELAGAVI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.26 To 28/Pan/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Adarsh Co-Op. Credit Ito, Ward-1(2), Society Ltd. Bagalkot Vs. A-P: Jugul, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum-591252. Pan: Aaaas 5616 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Belagavi In Ita No. Cit(A)/Bgm/10349/2015-16, Cit(A)/Bgm/10518/2014-15 & Cit(A)/Bgm/10136/2015-16 All Dated 27.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Ward-1(2), Belgaum U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2018 & For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.09.2014 & 24.08.2015. 2. The Only Issue In These Three Appeals Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds In All The Appeals & Hence, We Take The Facts & Grounds From Ita No. The Adarsh Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 26/Pan/2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Relevant Grounds Raised By Assessee Are Reads As Under:

disallowing the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, in respect of income earned from associate/nominal members. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that…… i. the Citizen’s case is distinguishable on facts as in the present case the dealings are with members and there are no dealings with public at large. ii. regular, associate and nominal

M/S SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TXATION), WARD -1, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 73/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance is only in context of Residents [u/s 40a(ia)]. Further this benefit of proviso to section 201(1) is available subject to furnishing by the deductor a certificate from the accountant in Form 26. No such certificate was filed either before the AO or during the course of the appellate proceedings. Jurisdictional Tribunal in case of Intel Tech India

M/S. AHILIABAI SARDESSAI, ,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ahiliabai Sardessai Assistant Commissioner Of 301, Lotus Court, M. G. Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Road, St. Inwz Junction, Panaji. Panaji, Goa-403001. (Pan: Aagfa9044G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri N. J. Prabhudesai, Ar Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 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 Ita No. Cit(A), Pnj-1/10391/2017-18 Dated 14.09.2018 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit, Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa Dated 13.12.2017. 2. Shri N. J. Prabhudesai, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

section 14A of the Act. 4. Brief facts as culled out from records are that assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of iron ore mining, cargo handling and investments. Return of income was filed at Rs. Nil on 2 M/s. Ahiliabai Sardessari, A.Y: 2015-16 30.09.2015 with a carried forward loss of Rs.7

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/-.

disallowed the claim by stating that the appellant is not a developer but a nodal agency. The AO placed reliance on the ratio of decision of Hon'ble ITAT 'C' Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITA.No.1972/AHD/2014). 4.3. On perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is found that the facts

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/-.

disallowed the claim by stating that the appellant is not a developer but a nodal agency. The AO placed reliance on the ratio of decision of Hon'ble ITAT 'C' Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITA.No.1972/AHD/2014). 4.3. On perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is found that the facts

SHRI MALLIKARJUN URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), , BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Mallikarjun Urban Ito, Ward-1(4), Co-Operative Credit Belagavi Society Ltd. Vs. A-P: Jugul, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum-591252. Pan: Aaaas 5616 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Shivanand Halbhavi, Ca Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Belgaum In Ita No.Cit(A)/Bgm/10167/2017-18 Dated 04.10.2018 Against The Order Passed By Ito, Ward-1(4), Belagavi U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.11.2017. 2. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In The Present Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

45. To sum up, therefore, the ratio decidendi of Citizen Co-Operative Society Ltd. (supra), must be given effect to Section 80P of the IT Act, being a benevolent provision enacted by Parliament to encourage and promote the credit of the co-operative sector in general must be read liberally and reasonably, and if there is ambiguity, in favour

KALIDAS CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,KAMATGI, BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Kalidas Co- Ito, Ward-1, Operative Credit Bagalkot Society Ltd. Near Choudeshwari Vs. Temple, Kamatgi, Tal: Hungund, Dist: Bagalkot, Karnataka-587120. Pan: Aaaak 9788 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Belagavi In Ita No.Cit(A)/Bgm/10172/2017-18 Dated 27.12.2018 Against The Order Passed By Ito, Ward-1, Bagalkot U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 31.10.2017 For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In The Present Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

45. To sum up, therefore, the ratio decidendi of Citizen Co-Operative Society Ltd. (supra), must be given effect to Section 80P of the IT Act, being a benevolent provision enacted by Parliament to encourage and promote the credit of the co-operative sector in general must be read liberally and reasonably, and if there is ambiguity, in favour

VIRUPAXAPPA SIDRAMAPPA BEMBALGI,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BELGAVU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 011/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S Virupakaxappa Sidramappa Bembalgi 580, Saraf Katta, Shahapur, Belgaum-590003. Pan : Aadfv3936F . . . . . . . Appellant

disallowance of (i) total URD purchases of ₹1,61,75,480/- and (ii) Labour charges paid for ornamentation ₹3,86,340/- or Option- (B) addition of ₹45,29,674/- on account of estimation of gross profit @40% of estimated ad-hoc sales/turnover of ₹250Lakhs. Since the first option(A) will result into profit of more than the turnover

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, MARGAO., MARGAO vs. M/S SALGAONCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., PANAJI

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

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

section 41(1) of the Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aircel Cellular Ltd. vs. CIT, 45 taxmann.com 55 (Guj.). We also find that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are based on the evidence filed before him that the sundry creditors were