M/S VEEJAY FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return’ 8. Sub-section (1) of section 143 states that a return shall be processed to compute total income by making six types of `adjustments’ as set out in sub-clauses (i) to (vi). As noted

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance made by AO of a sum of Rs.81,16,257/- incurred on repair and renovation of two temples situated in mining areas by holding that they do not come under the purview of current 6 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. repairs. The whole of the addition in the sum of Rs.1

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance made by AO of a sum of Rs.81,16,257/- incurred on repair and renovation of two temples situated in mining areas by holding that they do not come under the purview of current 6 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. repairs. The whole of the addition in the sum of Rs.1

MAHADEV MALLAPPA ATAR,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELAGAVI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 014/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mahadev Mallappa Atar Pwd Contractor, Katkol, Ramdurg, Dist. Balgavi-591114 Pan:Abxpa7467P . . . . . . . Appellant

disallowance of cash payment of ₹32,000/- made to M/s Nirani Cements and (4) unexplained cash deposits of ₹20,00,000/- added u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforestated additions the assessee filed first appeal before Ld. NFAC which came to be dismissed. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 Mahadev Mallappa Atar Vs ITO ITA Nos.14/PAN/2024

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

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section 250(6

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

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section 250(6

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

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section 250(6

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

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section 250(6

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

disallow only 30% of such labour charges paid to karigars/artisans as excessive. Au contraire, in first appellate proceedings, these additions were deleted in tandem for all the years without vouching key evidences & merits of the cases but by outdoing the provisions of rule 46A (supra) and section 250(6

SHRI BASAVESHWAR PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGHA N SUNADHOLI,SUNADHOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GOKAK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 030/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Basaveshwar Prathamik Krishi Pattin Sahakari Sangha At Post: Sundholi, Ta.: Sundholi Dist. Belagavi.-591310 Pan : Aahas0468A . . . . . . . Appellant

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80- IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or ITAT-Panaji Page 6

ALLAMAPRABHU VUSS NI, KALLOLI,KALLOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 063/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Allamaprabhu Vuss Niyamit Kalloli 09, Allamaprabhu Vuss Niyamit Kalloli, Kalloli So Dist. Belagavi. Pan : Aafaa8818E . . . . . . . Appellant

disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or ITAT-Panaji Page 6

THE OMKAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BELAGAVI

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 84/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Omkar Urban Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd. A/P. : Kangral (Bk.), Belagavi. Pan: Aaaat3508P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, for cash credits based on deposits in bank, without going through the books of accounts maintained by the Appellant 6. Because, the Assessing Officer has wrongly disallowed

PRIYADARSHANI MAHILA CO-OP CR. SOCIETY LTD,BELAGAVI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 032/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Priyadarshani Mahila Co-Op. Society Ltd. At Post: Kognoli, Ta.: Nippani Dist. Belagavi. Pan : Aabap2582L . . . . . . . Appellant

6. As we note, the rival parties has no dispute over the application of provisions of section 80AC(ii) of the Act which for the purpose of allowance of claim u/c VI-A of the Act mandates the filing of return with a such claim therein within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. That

MRS VINI P. KENI,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), 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. Nos. 112/Pan/2022 (A.Y. 2014-15 ) Vini Prasad Keni, Vs Ito-Ward-1(3), Keni Building, Aayakar Bhavan, . Dr.Dada Vaidhya Road, Panaji-403001, Panjim-403001, Goa. Goa. . Pan .No. Adppk9767N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.E.Robinson.Ar Revenue By Sri Narender Reddy.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/ Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised

6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowances overlooking the submissions. On the first disputed issue, of disallowance u/sec14A of the Act, the Ld.AR mentioned that the assessee has not incurred any expenses for earning exempt income and 5 ITA. No. 112/PAN/2022 Vini.Prasad

FOMENTO KARNATAKA MINING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH FOMENTO RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pan/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Fomento Karnataka Mining Vs. Jcit, Margao Range, Company Private Limited, Margao, Goa. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Private Limited), 102, 1St Floor, Kamat Metropolis-I, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa- 403001. Pan : Aaacf7487K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 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)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 27.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Trading In The Iron Ore. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.26,40,77,220/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) At A Total Income Of Rs.26,63,57,955/-. While Doing So, The Assessing Officer Made Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.15,49,787/-, Disallowance On Account Of Sundry Creditors Extracting As Fictitious Of Rs.7,30,948/-. 3. Being Aggrieved, An Appeal Was Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A) Contending That No Disallowance U/S 14A Is Required To Be Made In The Absence Of Any Expenditure Incurred To Earn The Exempt Income. It Was Also Contended That No Addition On Account Of Outstanding Creditors Is Required To Be Made, As The Credits Represent The Opening

section 14A of the Act. As regards to the disallowance on account of sundry creditors, it is submitted that the credits represent the opening balance and, therefore, no addition can be made for the year under consideration. 6

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowance involving varying sums, reading as under : 4 ITA.No.42/PAN/2019 5 ITA.No.42/PAN/2019 6 ITA.No.42/PAN/2019 3.1. It is in this factual backdrop that the first and foremost issue between the parties is that of denial of sec.80P (2) deduction to the assessee regarding it’s interest income derived from deposits made in cooperative banks, and that too involving

SONALI MAHENDRA NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 263 and by order dt. 19/04/2024 set-aside the former order for fresh assessment for Ld. AO’s failure to conduct inquiry. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 13 Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar Vs ITO ITA No.: 313/PAN/2025 AY: 2016-17 3. Pursuant to revisionary direction of Ld. PCIT, the Ld. AO conducted the inquiries and by considering

GOA CARBON LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), PANAJI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowing certain deduction for the concerned assessment years. 6. It would be pertinent to refer to that, section 80HHC of the IT Act, allows

KABBUR POORVA BHAG VIVIDODDHESHA PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI S SANGH NI, KABBUR,KABBUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 304/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Kabbur Purvbhag Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit At Post: Kabbur, Tal.:Chikodi, Dist.:Belgaum. Pan : Aadat9192J . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Nippani. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069069880(1) Dt. 25/09/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 10/03/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereafter].

6. written submission; and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 perused material placed on record, case laws relied by both the rival parties. At the outset we note that, when the matter of 46% disallowance of 80P(2) travelled in first appeal, the Ld. NFAC considered the material placed before him and without conclusively adjudicating