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

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of assessee. 22. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the AO may be directed to calculate the disallowance attributable to exempted income as per Rule 8D (2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules 1962 by considering

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

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of assessee. 22. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the AO may be directed to calculate the disallowance attributable to exempted income as per Rule 8D (2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules 1962 by considering

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

section 143(1)(a) can be construed as a `disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report not taken into account in computing the total income in the return’. 7

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

section 14A of the Act, were the assesses appeal for A.Y.2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are pending before National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)/CIT(A) and it is not disputed by the parties. Accordingly, we considering facts, circumstances follow the judicial precedence and restore the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) and allow the ground of appeal

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

disallowance of provisions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT., BAGALKOT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

disallowance of provisions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

disallowance of provisions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

disallowance of provisions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

disallowance of provisions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

disallowance of provisions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

disallowance of provisions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

disallowance of provisions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT., BAGALKOT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

disallowance of provisions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue

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

section 139(1) of the Act. Now when a claim for ‘C-Deduction in respect of certain income’ u/c VI-A of the Act is statutorily barred by operation by specific provision of law, then a question as to who and how such denial or disallowance is to be made rests with the mechanism put in place in administration

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

7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The ground of appeal nos.1 and 2 challenges the decision of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of 14A of the Act. The appellant took a consistent stand that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt income, therefore, no disallowance can be made. However, the Assessing

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

7 of 11 Allamaprabhu VUSS Niyamit Kalloli Vs ITO, Gokak ITA Nos.063/PAN/2025 AY: 2018-19 10. As on the date of processing the return summarily u/s 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act there was no enabling power vested with the Ld. CPC to apply provisions of section 80AC(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned action of disallowance

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

7 of 12 Priyadarshani Mahila Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs DCIT, CPC ITA Nos.032/PAN/2025 AY: 2019-20 s/s (1) of section 143 of the Act to deny or disallow

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

7 of the impugned order that "Subject to satisfying the AO that it does not have nominal 2 ITA.No.42/PAN/2019 members by producing a certificate from the appellant itself to this effect, and also a certificate from the auditor stating that it does not have nominal members’, while allowing the ground "disallowance under section

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].

disallowance of 80P(2) travelled in first appeal, the Ld. NFAC considered the material placed before him and without conclusively adjudicating it u/s 251 of the Act, re-directed the same to the Ld. AO vide para 6.2.3 placed on pg 16 of the order. We are heedful to the restriction placed by clause (a) of sub- 7. section