UMICORE AUTOCAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( ORIGINAL APPELLANT UMICORE ANANDEYA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),ZUARINAGAR, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.118 & 119/Pan/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

section 47(xiii) by reason of the premature transfer of shares. The Revenue preferred writ petition against the ruling of the AAR. During the pendency of the writ petition, the AO held that there was such short term capital gain of Rs.2.00 crore to the assesssee and as such depreciation of Rs.68,79,894/- was not allowed

UMICORE AUTOCAT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( ORIGINAL APPELLANT UMICORE ANANDEYA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),ZUARINAGAR, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.118 & 119/Pan/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

section 47(xiii) by reason of the premature transfer of shares. The Revenue preferred writ petition against the ruling of the AAR. During the pendency of the writ petition, the AO held that there was such short term capital gain of Rs.2.00 crore to the assesssee and as such depreciation of Rs.68,79,894/- was not allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MANIPAL

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi M/S. Manipal Technologies Limited, Vs. Udayavani Building, Manipal- 576104. Pan: Aabcm 9516 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue 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: The Present Appeal Filed By The Department Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangaluru In Appeal No. Ita No. 10030/Udp/Cit(A)Mng/2016-17 Dated 27.11.2017 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle- 1, Udupi Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2016. 2. There Are Six Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Department In The Present Appeal, All Of Which Relate To The Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The Act R.W.R. 8D(2)(Ii) & 8D(2)(Iii) Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Rules), Amounting To Rs. 1,61,65,201/-.

47,89,917/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the rules in the impugned year for which the reason for such change in the stand by the AO are not discernible from the impugned assessment order of the ld. AO. Considering this observations and facts and relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka

SCORPIO IRON LTD,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. referred to herein supra

SHREE AMBEY FORGING PRIVAT LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - (4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. referred to herein supra

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

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

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

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

47[(6) The person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any sum, whether or not chargeable under the provisions of this Act, shall furnish the information relating to payment of such sum, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed.48] 49[(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

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

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

M/S SESA RESOURS LTD (FORMERLY V. S. DEMPO & CO. PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2004-05 Sesa Resources Limied Vs. Acit, (Formerly V.S. Dempo & Co., Pvt. Circle-1(1), Aayakar Ltd.), Bhavan, Sesa Ghor, 20 Edc Complex, Edc Complex, Patto, Patto, Panaji, Panaji, Goa – 403 001. Goa. Pan: Aaacv7160R

section 271 (1) (c) of a sum of Rs.7,26,536/-. Your Appellant contends that the Assessee has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars thereof. Your Petitioner prays for directions for deleting the penalty as above. 2. Your Petitioner craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete the above Ground of Appeal.” 3. Facts