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

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

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

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

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, UDUPI., UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED., UDUPI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.332 & 333/Pan/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

section 14A of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of this ground are that the assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs.2,82,640/- and offered suo motu disallowance u/s.14A at Rs.7,075/-. On a specific query, the assessee failed to furnish the working of such disallowance. The AO computed the disallowance under Rule

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, UDUPI., UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED., UDUPI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.332 & 333/Pan/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

section 14A of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of this ground are that the assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs.2,82,640/- and offered suo motu disallowance u/s.14A at Rs.7,075/-. On a specific query, the assessee failed to furnish the working of such disallowance. The AO computed the disallowance under Rule