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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 14A, the assessee before the Assessing Officer has filed all the relevant details for investment made in mutual funds on which assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.77,65,278/-. It has also been brought on record before the Assessing Officer that entire money invested in the mutual funds were out of sales consideration received from the sale

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 14A, the assessee before the Assessing Officer has filed all the relevant details for investment made in mutual funds on which assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.77,65,278/-. It has also been brought on record before the Assessing Officer that entire money invested in the mutual funds were out of sales consideration received from the sale

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/-.

65 Taxmann.com 295 (Kar), ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)((ii) and (iii) of the Rules. 7. Aggrieved, the Department is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, the ld. counsel of the assessee Smt. Sheetal Borkar submitted that the present issue is squarely covered

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

disallowance of (i) total URD purchases of ₹1,61,75,480/- and (ii) Labour charges paid for ornamentation ₹3,86,340/- or Option- (B) addition of ₹45,29,674/- on account of estimation of gross profit @40% of estimated ad-hoc sales/turnover of ₹250Lakhs. Since the first option(A) will result into profit of more than the turnover

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2 (1), PANAJI., PANAJI vs. SHREE KALIKA URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED , MAPUSA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.367/Pan/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Panaji. बनाम / V/S. Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Block No.6, Om Chambers, Feira Baiya, Near Laxminarayan Temple, Mapusa Bardes, Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aacas1697Q Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Assessee By : Shri R. K. Pikale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction In Respect Of Income Of Co-Operative Society U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I), 80P(2)(C)(Ii), 80P(2)(D) & 40(A)(Ia) On The Ground That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society, Accepts Deposits Only From Its Members & Can Lend Money Only To Its Members & It Cannot Issue Cheque Books, When The Assessee Accepts Deposits & Grants Loans To Its Members On Which It Makes Profit & Gain By Way Of Charging Interest, Thus Providing Credit Facility Is Akin To Banking Business As Per Section 2(24)(Viia) & Part-V Of The Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Deduction U/S. 80P.

disallowance of interest paid to the members for non- deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act taking into consideration that the respondent-assessee society is not a cooperative bank held that the provisions of section 194A of the Act have no application. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.1,89,65

GOA MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.63/Pan/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Goa Minerals Private Limited, The Assistant P.B.No.14, Salgaocar House, V Commissioner Of Income Dr.F.L.Gomes Road, S Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vasco Da Gama, Goa. Goa – 403802 Pan: Aaacg 6716 C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Veer Raghavan – Ar Revenue By Shri N. Shrikanth – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2023

disallowed certain revenue expenditure amounting to Rs.62,48,885/- and treated the same as a capital expenditure eligible for depreciation in the year in which the same is put to use. In view of the same, we are enclosing statement of depreciation calculated after taking into account the aforesaid assessment of AY 2013-14. We request your goodself to kindly

M/S SALITHO ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - M1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

MINERAL FOUNDATION OF GOA,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

65,330/- on gross income. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. after receiving the impugned appeal order, the assessee filed the appeal before the ITAT. 3. In relation to this disallowance u/s 11(1)(a) the observation of the Ld. AO is as follows

COMMUNIDADE OF CHICALIM,CHICALIM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.207/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) Comunidade Of Chicalim, Vs Acit Circle 2(1), Ground Floor, St Xavier Aaykar Bhavan, . Church Building, Edc, Patto, Chicalim-403802, Panjim South Goa,Goa. Goa-403001. Pan .No. Aaaabc0196P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

65,74,350/-. The A.O find that the assessee could not carried forward the loss for eight assessment years immediately succeeding the A.Y.2007-08, and such loss can be set off till A.Y.2015-16. 3. The A.O dealt on the provisions of section 74 of the Act and the code of comunidades, and considered the details of carried forwarded for A.Y.2007-08

M/S SOVA,PANAJI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2018-19 M/S Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aacfs8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent

65,10,180/- allowed in computation of income by the Ld. NFeAC. The assessee vide its reply dt. 12/12/2023 per contra requested to rectify the c/f current business loss to ₹27,38,53,538/-. Upon a specific query about the status of such rectification proceedings, the appellant submitted that same was still pending before the Ld. AO. Upon direction

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI vs. M/S MILROC GOOD EARTH PROPERTY AND DEVELOPERS LLP, PANAJI

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee in CO No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 26/Pan/2018 ""या"ेपसं./Co.No.06/Pan/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.26/Pan/2018) "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Milroc Good Earth Property & Developers Llp, 501, 5Th Floor Milroc Lar Menezes, S.V. Road, Panaji-Goa - 403001 Pan : Aaacg7222M ……""यथ" / Respondent

65,42,694/-. 3 M/s. Milroc Good Earth Property & Developers, LLP CO No. 06/PAN/2018 The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143(2) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing

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

disallowance made by the assessing officer towards appellant's claim of family settlement payments, development and other incidental expenses of Rs 29,73,126/- 5. The following are the details of the same: a) Development Agreement Cost (Shri Annappa Kedari) Rs.7,36,512/- b) Family Settlement Payment (DD) Rs.5,00,000/- c) Family Settlement Payment (Cost of 3 Plots) Rs.4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI , BELAGAVI vs. SHRI IDREES MOHAMMED, KALABURAGI

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 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi, . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Idrees Mohammed Shop No. 4Cc, New Vegetable Market, Main Road, Kalaburagi, Karnataka-585101. Pan: Aajpi7572E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Ramesh Mudhol [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Sashi Saklani [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax

disallowance of agricultural income and treating ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 30 DCIT Vs Idrees Mohammed ITA No. 149/PAN/2023 AY: 2017-18 the same as Income from Other Sources without appreciating that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his agricultural income during the course of assessment proceeding and the agricultural income offered by the assessee