HARDESH ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,MARGAO vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hardesh Ores Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Villa Flores Da Silva, Vs. Margao, Goa. Erasmo Carvalho Street, Margao, Goa-403601. (Pan: Aaach4515J) (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 : 02.09.2022 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

section 14A clearly applied to the assessee's case. The Assessing Officer accordingly invoked rule 8D and computed the disallowance at 0.5 per cent. of Rs.381,67,09,731, the average investment. Then, he disallowed Rs. 1

SHRI NITIN A SHIRGURKAR,BELGAVI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

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

disallow a sum of Rs.30,086/- i.e. 1,00,288 X 30%= Rs.30,086/ i.e. 1,00,288 X 30%= Rs.30,086/- as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which has not been provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which has not been done. 3. On perusal of records, the following observations have

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

67,421/-. On other hand the assessee calculated the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) amount of Rs.60,65,330/- 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

M/S KAMAT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI., PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

67,934/- and passed the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.2. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 28.05.2018 rejected the ground of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order

SHIRDI STEEL RE-ROLLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUNCOLIM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Shirdi Steel Re-Rollers Ito, Ward-5, Margao Pvt. Ltd. Nagaraj Kale, Chartered Accountant, G-4, Vs. Kurtarkar Vihar, Opp: Costa Factory, Aquem, Margao, Goa-403601 Pan: Aakfs 3191 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Srinivas Nayak, Ca Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A),- 2, Panaji In Appeal No. Ita No. 597/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.06.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Ito, Ward-5, Margao, U/S 143(3) R.W.S 92Ca Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Additions Made By The Ld. Ao For Four Different Items For Which The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal For Non-Prosecution.

section 14A clearly applied to the assessee's case. The Assessing Officer accordingly invoked rule 8D and computed the disallowance at 0.5 per cent. of Rs.381,67,09,731, the average investment. Then, he disallowed Rs. 1

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

67,922/- 4. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated on the above in the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) and accordingly notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) was issued on 29.12.06. The assessee filed appeal against the order u/s 143(3) which was decided by CIT(A) vide order in ITA No. 238/PNJ/06-07 dated

M/S. AHILIABAI SARDESSAI, ,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ahiliabai Sardessai Assistant Commissioner Of 301, Lotus Court, M. G. Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Road, St. Inwz Junction, Panaji. Panaji, Goa-403001. (Pan: Aagfa9044G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri N. J. Prabhudesai, Ar Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2022 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. Cit(A), Pnj-1/10391/2017-18 Dated 14.09.2018 For A.Y. 2015-16 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(1), Panaji, Goa Dated 13.12.2017. 2. Shri N. J. Prabhudesai, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

section 14A clearly applied to the assessee's case. The Assessing Officer accordingly invoked rule 8D and computed the disallowance at 0.5 per cent. of Rs.381,67,09,731, the average investment. Then, he disallowed Rs. 1

THE BRAHMALING MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, BELGAUM

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act are issued calling for details in support of return of income filed. The assesse has filed the information of members of the society along with interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks, cooperative society and scheduled bank. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has dealt on the submissions/details of regular members and associate/nominal members and find that

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

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-

disallowance of Renewal Charges of Mining Lease of Rs16,00,00,000/- He failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer was wrong in holding the expenditure as Capital Expenditure. He ignored the fact that the appellant was in mining business since past several years in the same mine, hence charges for renewal of mining lease was entirely a revenue

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

67 (SC)], ‘Aditya Minerals (P) Ltd. Vs CIT’ [1999, 106 Taxman 337 (SC)], ‘Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs CIT’ [1998, 117 ITR 747 (Cal)], culminated the revisionary proceedings by directing the Ld. AO to pass a consequential order by; (i) treating sums paid on renewal of mining lease as capital in nature (ii) denying set-off of losses against

INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,DONA PAULA vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

section 14A of the Act, but had failed to give any reason as to why the claim of the assessee that no part of the expenditure could be attributed towards earning of exempt income was not to be accepted. Although, the CIT(Appeals) in his order had tried to improve upon the aforesaid lapse of the A.O, but a perusal

ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., DONA PAULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

section 14A of the Act, but had failed to give any reason as to why the claim of the assessee that no part of the expenditure could be attributed towards earning of exempt income was not to be accepted. Although, the CIT(Appeals) in his order had tried to improve upon the aforesaid lapse of the A.O, but a perusal

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

disallowance of community development and village welfare 7 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye and Bros. expenses and this ground of appeal allowed in favour of the assessee. 7.On the second disputed issue, the Ld.AR mentioned that the expenses on stamp duty and registration charges of renewal of mining lease, paid as part payment towards second renewal of mining lease for the period

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

THE ORGAON URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MARCELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 074/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Orgaon Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited. Devulwada, Mercela, Goa-403 107. Pan : Aaaat6227D . . . . . . . Appellant

67,228/- owning to denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) r.w.s. 80P(4) of the Act in relation to interest income earned by the assessee on its term deposits held with Goa State Co- operative Bank Limited[‘GSCBL’]. Aggrieved assessee taken the matter up in appeal, wherein the Ld. NFAC confirmed the denial in line with the notings