GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGRAWAL (HUF),MARGAO vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Gangadhar Narsingdas Assistant Commissioner Of Agrawal (Huf) Income-Tax, Circle-1, 1St Floor, Anand Bhavan, Vs. Margao-Goa. Old Station Rod, Margao- Goa 403601 (Pan: Aabhg4804R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate 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 Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1 Vide Ita No. 42/Mrg/2014-15 Dated 16.03.2018 For A.Y. 2011-12 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, Margao, Goa Dated 25.03.2014. 2. Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

section 3 M/s. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal (HUF), A.Y: 2011-12 14A read with Rule 8D for which disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(i) – nil, under rule 8D(2)(ii) – Rs.5,67,749/- and under rule 8D(2)(iii) – Rs.10,46,911/-, totaling to Rs.16,14,660/-. Aggrieved, assessee went into appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4.3. While confirming

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A.No.344/Pan/2017 (A.Y.2013-14 ) Guala Closures(India) Vs. I T O Ward1(1), Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, D-1, Sesa Ghor, Edc, Patto, 20,Edc Complex, Panjim-403001. Patto, Goa. Panaji-403001, Goa Pan/Gir No.:Aaacg4447J Appellant .. Respondent

section 115-O of the Act vis-à-vis the rate of tax on dividend provided in the respective DTAA, etc. The assessee should be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And the additional ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.. Guala Closures (India) Private Limited

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

M/S GOA NATURAL FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,KUNDAIM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.188/Pan/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Goa Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.37 & 38, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Panaji- 403001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaccg7564Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Panaji. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2021 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 (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Is Void-Ab-Initio. 2) The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. 3) The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.2,77,54,053/- Made By The Ao, Whereas The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80Ib Was Only Rs.1,64,18,999/-. 4) The Ld Ao Has Erred In Disallowing The Profit As Per Profit & Loss Account Of Rs.2,77,54,053/- Whereas The Profit As Per The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Only Rs.1,64,18,999/- Which Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80Ib In The Return Of Income Filled By The Assessee. Hence The Maximum Addition By Way Of Disallowance Of Assessee Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ib Can Be Only Rs.1,64,18,999/-.

54,050/- denying the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act on the ground that (i) the assessee had not been engaged the process of producing vegetables or fruits as it is engaged in the business of pasteurized of milk and its sale; (ii) the business of dairy products was eligible for deduction under sub-section

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/-.

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 of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act and M/s. Goa State Infrastructure

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/-.

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 of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act and M/s. Goa State Infrastructure

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), , BELGAVI vs. SHIVA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, BELGAVI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance made by the A.O. observing that the income earned from persons other than its regular members would not be eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and such income earned from business with persons other than the regular members would be taxable as income from business. Similar issue was placed for adjudication

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 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

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

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

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

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, 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