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

50:] In the present case the payee is a non-resident. So the deductor assessee cannot take advantage of the same. The fact that the proviso is applicable only in case of Resident payees, becomes amply clear when read in conjunction with Section 40a(i) and 40a(ia). Section 40a(i) is wrt payments to non-residents where

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. 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 40(a)(ia) brought by Finance Act 2012 for the claim

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), PANAJI., PANAJI vs. M/S ALCON RESORT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., PANAJI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S Alcon Resort Holdings Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Alcon Chambers, Edc Complex, Patto Plaza, Vs. D.B. Road, Panaji, Panaji Goa Pan: Aabca6880E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Y.V. Raviraj (Dr) Assessee By : Shri M.C. Naniwadekar (Advocate) Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2019

3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not considering the findings of the AO that the assessee has earned tax free income in the form of dividend amounting to Rs. 42,50,000/-. These income earned from mutual fund or shares where assessee has made investment in earlier year. The assessee has borrowed fund from bank which is utilized

ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., DONA PAULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

3. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act Rs. 11,39,867/- 4. Addition towards cessation of liabilities Rs. 9,96,547/- u/s.41(1) of the Act 5 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.380 & 381/PAN/2017 5. Addition of un-paid creditors/advances Rs.3,24,27,504/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). After deliberating

INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,DONA PAULA vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

3. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act Rs. 11,39,867/- 4. Addition towards cessation of liabilities Rs. 9,96,547/- u/s.41(1) of the Act 5 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.380 & 381/PAN/2017 5. Addition of un-paid creditors/advances Rs.3,24,27,504/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). After deliberating

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

disallowance of claim of expenses on stamp duty and registration charges of mining lease. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of mining 2 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye and Bros. of Iron Ore extraction and selling .The assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2016-17

SMT BERTHA D'COSTA,CAVELOSSIM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, MARGAO

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.158 &159/Pan/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri.Julio D Costa, Vs Ito-Ward-2, H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6709F) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. Smt.Bertha D Costa, Ito-Ward-2, Vs H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. . Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6748N) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Shrinivas Nayak.Ar Revenue By Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesses (Husband & Wife) Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A) -1 Panaji Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesses Are Governed By The Portuguese Civil Code & Provisions Of Section 5A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Aconsolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience

disallowance to that extent and since the assessee is governed by the Portuguese civil code 50% of Rs.10,71,948/- i.e Rs5,35,974/- was added and finally the A.O has assessed the total income of Rs14,14,494/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 31.08.2017. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed

SHRI JULIO D'COSTA,CAVELOSIM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, MARGAO

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.158 &159/Pan/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri.Julio D Costa, Vs Ito-Ward-2, H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6709F) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. Smt.Bertha D Costa, Ito-Ward-2, Vs H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. . Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6748N) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Shrinivas Nayak.Ar Revenue By Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesses (Husband & Wife) Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A) -1 Panaji Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesses Are Governed By The Portuguese Civil Code & Provisions Of Section 5A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Aconsolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience

disallowance to that extent and since the assessee is governed by the Portuguese civil code 50% of Rs.10,71,948/- i.e Rs5,35,974/- was added and finally the A.O has assessed the total income of Rs14,14,494/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 31.08.2017. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed

PARKKOT MARITIME AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,GOA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, MARGAO., MARGAO

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

disallowance made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji-I, has greatly relied on the observations of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax based on the provisions of Section 80-I. Section 80-I has lost its applicability and relevance with effect from 1-4- 1991 when Section

PARKKOT MARITIME AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,GOA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

disallowance made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji-I, has greatly relied on the observations of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax based on the provisions of Section 80-I. Section 80-I has lost its applicability and relevance with effect from 1-4- 1991 when Section

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’]

50 (Del-ITAT)] and ‘Bannalal Jat Construction (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT’ [2019, 106 Taxmann.com 128 (SC)]. ITAT-Panaji Page 27 of 39 ACIT Vs M/s Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 148/PAN/2025 AY: 2017-18 16. Per contra the respondent assessee vide its written submission dt. 09/02/2026 reiterated its contentions & arguments as were laid before the Ld. CIT(A) that

THE KHANAPUR vs. S SANGH LTD,BELGAUMVS.PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

3. (a) The Learned CIT(A) further erred in denying the deduction of Rs. 284,574 claimed u/s. 80P (2)(d) in respect of interest received on the reserve fund FD 4 ITA.No.62/PAN./2022 kept with Belgaum Dist. Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd (BDCC Bank) (b) The Learned CIT (A) ought to have taken into consideration the fact that

M/S NAVRATNA JEWELLERS & CO.,GOKAK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, GOKAK

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 154. Therefore, there is no justification in disallowing Interest of Rs.2,36,126/-. Instead Commissioner [Appeals] confirmed the disallowance which is unjustified and requires to be deleted. [B] Learned Commissioner [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the appellant had not Revised the Income for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 claiming the Interest of Rs.2,36,126/-. Interest paid by appellant

MRS. VINI PRASAD KENI,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

50% of Rs. 64,78,619/- in terms of Sec 5A) - Ref. Para 4.5 of Assessment Order. 2. While the AO has reached his conclusion on the basis that "no separate management is kept for looking after above investment" (Ref. para 4.3 of the order) the Ld. CIT erred in holding that the appellant's submission is not supported

MR. PRASAD VASUDEV KENI,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

50% of Rs. 64,78,619/- in terms of Sec 5A) - Ref. Para 4.5 of Assessment Order. 2. While the AO has reached his conclusion on the basis that "no separate management is kept for looking after above investment" (Ref. para 4.3 of the order) the Ld. CIT erred in holding that the appellant's submission is not supported

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.242/Pan/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Orgaon Urban Co- Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Panaji, Operative Credit Society Goa. Limited, Deulwada, Marcela, Goa- 403107. Pan : Aaaat6227D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhu Gawde Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 29.05.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Learned Cit(A) Has Not Appreciated Appellants Submission That Though The Appellants Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass Of Deduction Under Chapter Via & Low Income & High Loans / Advances / Investments The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Examining Other Issues & Has Wrongly Travelled Beyond His Permitted Ambit In Making The Disallowances U/S. 40(A)(Ia) & Sec. 36(1)(V). 2) The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Interest Earned On Statutory Investments Of Statutory Funds In The Apex Bank(Cooperative

50,110/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer denied the claim for exemption under the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) and section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on 3 the ground that the appellant is a cooperative bank. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.11,21,494/- under the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of depreciation on turbines to the extent of Rs. 2,21,40,1312 out of Rs. 3,80,50,138 claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on straightline basis and not on the WDV basis. The learned AO held that under rules various power generating turbines put to use during

BEIERSDORF INDIA (P) LTD.,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

50% has been written-off as bad debts in its books of account which is allowable under section 36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. At this juncture, we also take cognizance of submissions of the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that the issue of allowing bad debt is covered in favour of the assessee by the order