ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowed the claim of entire deduction holding it as AOP. In framing the aforestated assessment, the Ld. AO placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of ‘CIT Vs Bankipur Club Ltd.’ reported in 226 ITR 97 (SC) [equivalent citation 92 taxman 278] and ‘Chelmsford Club Vs CIT’ reported

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowed the claim of entire deduction holding it as AOP. In framing the aforestated assessment, the Ld. AO placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of ‘CIT Vs Bankipur Club Ltd.’ reported in 226 ITR 97 (SC) [equivalent citation 92 taxman 278] and ‘Chelmsford Club Vs CIT’ reported

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowed the claim of entire deduction holding it as AOP. In framing the aforestated assessment, the Ld. AO placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of ‘CIT Vs Bankipur Club Ltd.’ reported in 226 ITR 97 (SC) [equivalent citation 92 taxman 278] and ‘Chelmsford Club Vs CIT’ reported

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowed the claim of entire deduction holding it as AOP. In framing the aforestated assessment, the Ld. AO placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of ‘CIT Vs Bankipur Club Ltd.’ reported in 226 ITR 97 (SC) [equivalent citation 92 taxman 278] and ‘Chelmsford Club Vs CIT’ reported

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowed the claim of entire deduction holding it as AOP. In framing the aforestated assessment, the Ld. AO placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of ‘CIT Vs Bankipur Club Ltd.’ reported in 226 ITR 97 (SC) [equivalent citation 92 taxman 278] and ‘Chelmsford Club Vs CIT’ reported

ITO, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU vs. M/S S. K & UDUPI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, MANGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.38 To 43/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowed the claim of entire deduction holding it as AOP. In framing the aforestated assessment, the Ld. AO placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of ‘CIT Vs Bankipur Club Ltd.’ reported in 226 ITR 97 (SC) [equivalent citation 92 taxman 278] and ‘Chelmsford Club Vs CIT’ reported

SHRI GOPALKRISHNA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

47,78,707/- as against the NIL income returned by the assessee. 4.3 In an appeal, Ld. CIT(A) following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) decision in ‘Quepem Urban Co-op. Credit Society Vs ACIT’ reported in 58 taxmann.com 113, came to reverse the action of Ld. AO and thus allowed the 80P(2) deduction

PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BEDKIHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

47,78,707/- as against the NIL income returned by the assessee. 4.3 In an appeal, Ld. CIT(A) following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) decision in ‘Quepem Urban Co-op. Credit Society Vs ACIT’ reported in 58 taxmann.com 113, came to reverse the action of Ld. AO and thus allowed the 80P(2) deduction

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

47,78,707/- as against the NIL income returned by the assessee. 4.3 In an appeal, Ld. CIT(A) following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) decision in ‘Quepem Urban Co-op. Credit Society Vs ACIT’ reported in 58 taxmann.com 113, came to reverse the action of Ld. AO and thus allowed the 80P(2) deduction

SHRI GOPALKRISHNA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

47,78,707/- as against the NIL income returned by the assessee. 4.3 In an appeal, Ld. CIT(A) following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) decision in ‘Quepem Urban Co-op. Credit Society Vs ACIT’ reported in 58 taxmann.com 113, came to reverse the action of Ld. AO and thus allowed the 80P(2) deduction

M/S VIC INDUSTRIES.,SATTARI, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (5), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Vic Industries, Vs Ito, Ward-2(5), Plot No.78, Pissurlem Panaji - Goa Industrial Estate, Sattari, Goa. Pan: Aacfv 8626 M Appellant Respondent M/S. Esteem Industries P. Vs Ito, Ward-2, Ltd., Plot No.76-77, Margao - Goa Pissurlem Industrial Estate, Sattari, Goa. Pan: Aaace 9474 F Appellant Respondent

disallowed deduction claimed u/sec. 80IB on Sales Tax Incentives of Rs.27,54,214/-, Bank Interest of Rs.11,02,117/-, Excise Refund received of Rs.1,47,99,719/-; and Entry Tax refund of Rs.11,08,224/-. Against the order of AO, assessee had preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who allowed the claim made by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order

M/S ESTEEM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,SATTARI GOA vs. INCOME TAX, WARD - 2,, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Vic Industries, Vs Ito, Ward-2(5), Plot No.78, Pissurlem Panaji - Goa Industrial Estate, Sattari, Goa. Pan: Aacfv 8626 M Appellant Respondent M/S. Esteem Industries P. Vs Ito, Ward-2, Ltd., Plot No.76-77, Margao - Goa Pissurlem Industrial Estate, Sattari, Goa. Pan: Aaace 9474 F Appellant Respondent

disallowed deduction claimed u/sec. 80IB on Sales Tax Incentives of Rs.27,54,214/-, Bank Interest of Rs.11,02,117/-, Excise Refund received of Rs.1,47,99,719/-; and Entry Tax refund of Rs.11,08,224/-. Against the order of AO, assessee had preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who allowed the claim made by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order

M/S SALITHO ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - M1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, UDUPI., UDUPI vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK,, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.337/Pan/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank, Central Accounts Department, Tax Cell, Head Officer, Manipal. Pan : Aaccs4699E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.01/Pan/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.337/Pan/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Canara Bank (Erstwhile Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Syndicate Bank), F.M. Wing, Head Office, 112, J. C. Road, Bengaluru- 560002. Pan : Aaacc6106G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Ashwini D. Hosmani Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan Smt. S. Lalitha R. Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2023

47,11,386/- u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The assessment, against the said return of income, was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 31.01.2005 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.300,03,13,170/- under 3 C.O. No.01/PAN/2023

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), PANAJI vs. M/S V. M. SALGAOCAR & BROTHERS (P) LTD., VASCO

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos. 209 To 211/Pan/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section 154(1A) of the Act, there is no time for amending an order on any matter other than the matter which has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 10 ACIT Vs M/s V M Salgaonkar & Bros. Pvt Ltd. ITA No. 209-211/PAN/2019