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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI, GOA vs. BAGKIYA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, GOA

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Sf-3, Building No.-3. Techno Cidade, Chogam Rd., Alto Porvorim, Goa-403521. Pan: Aaccb9382M . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: None For The Respondent Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Revenue’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(2) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges The Order Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Wheeled From The Order Dt. 25/08/2021 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18.[‘Ay’]

45-55 lakhs/each, so has to enable immediate cash withdrawal from banks for the purpose of out of books spending or gratification to secure business/contracts from government department. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 39 ACIT Vs M/s Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 148/PAN/2025 AY: 2017-18 14.4 It shall be worthy to note that

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)

45,940/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 21.11.2019. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and the assessee has filed the details

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:

3 M/s. Dempo Resorts Private Limited A.Y. 2012-13 of section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. 61 taxman.com 45 (Del). The assessee further submitted that the impugned year is assessment year 2012-13 whereas

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/-.

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.3,13,38,250/- and an addition of income from other sources amounting to Rs.23,97,310/- was made. 4.2. In the course of assessment, assessee had submitted audit report in Form 10CCB for its claim

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/-.

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.3,13,38,250/- and an addition of income from other sources amounting to Rs.23,97,310/- was made. 4.2. In the course of assessment, assessee had submitted audit report in Form 10CCB for its claim

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.

3. The only issue involved in this appeal by the assessee is in respect of disallowance of Rs.5,29,273/- made by the Ld. AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) read with section 14A of the Act. 4. Brief facts as culled out from records are that assessee

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

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE., MARGAO

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