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

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

disallowance u/s 11(1)(a) the observation of the Ld. AO is as follows: “6. Deduction claimed U/s. 11(1)(a): As per the provisions of Section 11(1)(a), an amount of 15% of the income available towards application is allowed as a deduction, provided 85% is applied towards the objects of the Trust. This deduction is allowable

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

1) of Section 80 IA on the profit earned by it from its activity of developing the infrastructure facility. The proviso does not operate as to depriving the developer of the benefit of the deduction even after the facility is transferred for the purpose of maintenance and that derived from the activity of maintenance and operation thereof

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

1) of Section 80 IA on the profit earned by it from its activity of developing the infrastructure facility. The proviso does not operate as to depriving the developer of the benefit of the deduction even after the facility is transferred for the purpose of maintenance and that derived from the activity of maintenance and operation thereof

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

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/-.

1,47,89,917/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the rules in the impugned year for which the reason for such change in the stand by the AO are not discernible from the impugned assessment order of the ld. AO. Considering this observations and facts and relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka

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

1) of the Act as requested by the appellant during the course of appeal proceeding before him under principle of natural justice. 4. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 5. The appellant reserves the right to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal.” 2 Goa Minerals Pvt. Ltd., [A] Submission

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

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

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

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

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.

1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is opposed to law and 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) and 40(a)(ia) on the ground

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

1,70,912/- d) Development charges in 1988-89 Rs. 5,65,600/- d) Family settlement amount paid 2008-2009 Rs. 5,00,000/- e) Cost of plots Rs. 4,28,405/- f) Formation of Gutters & roads 2006-07 Rs.13,08,209/- g) Stamp duty Rs. 3,03.403/- Total Rs.33,27,888/- AO in his finding categorically mentioned that

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