THE SANKHLI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,SANKHLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 058/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15

54,146/- which solitarily represented by disallowance of ₹51,56,366/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and income brought to tax u/h income from other sources of ₹3,39,677/-. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 The Sankhali Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO ITA Nos.058/PAN/2025 AY: 2014-15 3. Aggrieved assessee re-attempted to resolve

MAGSONS SUPERCENTRE,PANAJI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU (JURISDICTIONAL AO: CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 14/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Magsons Supercentre, 707, Dayanand Bandodkar Marg, Miramar, Panaji Goa – 403001. . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan: Aacfm4886A बिाम / Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru.

54,19,3330/- vide intimation dt. 30/09/2019. While doing so, the Ld. AO made a disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act with sum of ₹13,24,009/- on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI. 3.2 Aggrieved by the aforestated additions u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, assessee carried the disallowance before first appellate

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 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

SMT VANDANA SAMEER MAJALI,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.14/Pan/2022 (A.Y. 2011-12 ) Smt Vandana Sameer Majali, Vs Ito-Ward-1(2), H.No.189/B1/A, Civil Hospital Road, . Shukrawar Peth, Belagavi-590001. Tilakwadi, Karnataka. Belagavi-590006, . Karnataka. . Pan .No. Apupm1202K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information and after recording of reasons has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and has issued the notice u/sec148 of the Act on 27.03.2018 and in compliance the assesse has filed the return of income on 19.08.2018. Further notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

54,10,05,410/-. 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. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 39 M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 038/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 3.2 Subsequently, vide notice dt. 03/09/2014 issued

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’]

54,000/- made by the Ld. AO on account of unexplained cash entries without appreciating the facts. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the AO has made this addition on the basis of the incriminating material found at the survey premises and as per section 292C of the Act, such incriminating material is presumed to belong

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

54,36,889/- which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3.2 On Potdar Group of cases a search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act on 08/11/2021 was carried out and alongside a survey action u/s 133A of the Act on connected group cases was also carried on 09/11/2021. Pursuant to former action and incriminating material found

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

54,36,889/- which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3.2 On Potdar Group of cases a search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act on 08/11/2021 was carried out and alongside a survey action u/s 133A of the Act on connected group cases was also carried on 09/11/2021. Pursuant to former action and incriminating material found

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

54,36,889/- which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3.2 On Potdar Group of cases a search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act on 08/11/2021 was carried out and alongside a survey action u/s 133A of the Act on connected group cases was also carried on 09/11/2021. Pursuant to former action and incriminating material found

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

54,36,889/- which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3.2 On Potdar Group of cases a search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act on 08/11/2021 was carried out and alongside a survey action u/s 133A of the Act on connected group cases was also carried on 09/11/2021. Pursuant to former action and incriminating material found

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

54,36,889/- which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3.2 On Potdar Group of cases a search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act on 08/11/2021 was carried out and alongside a survey action u/s 133A of the Act on connected group cases was also carried on 09/11/2021. Pursuant to former action and incriminating material found

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

54,63,881/- & net profit of ₹7,65,092/-. For purpose said trading business, the assessee maintained regular books of account as prescribed u/s 44AA of the Act and subjected them to audit u/s 44AB of the Act. With the former details the appellant filed NIL return of income after claiming a set- off of carried forward loss & deduction