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

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

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

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

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

45,82,301/- under normal taxing provision vis-à- vis at ₹2,82,43,958/- u/s 115JB of the Act, and which further triggered initiation of consequential penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.2 The aforementioned order passed by the Ld. AO dislodging the claims of the assessee, was unsuccessfully challenged before the first appellate authority

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

SMT ALICIA NINETTE FIALHO GONSALVES,ILHAS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.82/Pan/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Alicia Ninette Fialho Gonsalves H.No.203, Villa Gonsalves, Chimbel, Ilhas, Goa – 403 006 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Panaji Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022

45 (Del.) observed, that as the insertion of the “2nd proviso” to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 7 ITA.No.82/PAN/2018 Smt. Alicia Ninette Fialho Gonsalves, Goa. was declaratory and curative in nature, therefore, the same would have a retrospective effect from 01.04.2005 i.e., the date of insertion of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Apart from that

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

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

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

2(47}(v), the importance of the word 'transfer' is due to the reason that under the charging section, viz., section 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

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2006-2007 M/S Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. Salgaonkar Bhava, Altino, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aabcs8862N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Impugns The Order Dt. 20/03/2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Dealt With Order Dt. 20/12/2011 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2006-07.[‘Ay’]

45,220/-. The said return of income of the assessee company in first instance without variation was summarily processed by the Revenue u/s 143(1) of the Act. 2.2 Subsequently, vide notice dt. 29/12/2008 issued u/s 143(2) of the Act, the case of the assessee selected for scrutiny and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order

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:

2 M/s. Dempo Resorts Private Limited A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the income recipient parties, have filed their return of income and offered the amount for tax in their individual income. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding that amendment to section

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/-.

2. Shri Jitendra Jain, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and 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

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/-.

2. Shri Jitendra Jain, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and 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