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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

73,68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse or their AE has not taken any benefit or exemption / deduction under the Income Tax Act. The Id AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, 4) has willfully ignored that the assesee

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

73,68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse or their AE has not taken any benefit or exemption / deduction under the Income Tax Act. The Id AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, 4) has willfully ignored that the assesee

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

73,895/- being difference in closing inventory due to incorrect valuation which remain unexplained satisfactorily to the Ld. AO. ITA No 035/PAN/2025, AY : 2014-15; 5. Similarly for AY 2014-15 the assessee filed its return of income online on 29/11/2014 declaring ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 32 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Vs JCIT/ACIT ITA Nos.034 & 035/PAN/2025

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

73,895/- being difference in closing inventory due to incorrect valuation which remain unexplained satisfactorily to the Ld. AO. ITA No 035/PAN/2025, AY : 2014-15; 5. Similarly for AY 2014-15 the assessee filed its return of income online on 29/11/2014 declaring ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 32 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Vs JCIT/ACIT ITA Nos.034 & 035/PAN/2025

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

DEMPO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing At Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 131/Pan/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dempo Industries Pvt. Ltd., Dempo House, Campal, Panaji, Goa - 403001 Pan: Aaacu1745F . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

73,34,825/-. 3.2 Subsequent to regular assessment upon direction of Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji [‘PCIT’ in short] u/s 263 of the Act, the assessment was reframed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 29/03/2016 by disallowing additional depreciation of ₹21,69,257/- claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on threefold reasons

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

73,43,358/-brought to tax u/h IOS against current business losses of ₹27,38,53,538/-, (ii) erred allowing c/f of balance loss ₹22,65,10,180/- and (iii) further erred in treating stamp duty payment ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 20 M/s Sova Vs PCIT ITA No. 024/PAN/2024 AY: 2018-19 of ₹2025Lakhs & registration fees of ₹101.25Lakhs

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI, GOA vs. BAGKIYA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, GOA

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 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Sf-3, Building No.-3. Techno Cidade, Chogam Rd., Alto Porvorim, Goa-403521. Pan: Aaccb9382M . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: None For The Respondent Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Revenue’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(2) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges The Order Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Wheeled From The Order Dt. 25/08/2021 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18.[‘Ay’]

73 of Annexure-‘A/BCPL/01-05’. ITAT-Panaji Page 19 of 39 ACIT Vs M/s Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 148/PAN/2025 AY: 2017-18 14.2 On the basis of IMs, a statement of one more salaried employee viz; Mr Ravikumar an account assistant [‘E3’] was recorded who was co-ordinating with banks for receipt & payments and chartered accountant of the assessee

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

M/S. KINECO (P) LTD.,BARDEZ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Kineco (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 60, Pilerne Industrial 2(4), Panaji. Vs. Estate, Pilerne, Bardez Goa- 403511. (Pan: Aabcm8681P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 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)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 418/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 01.06.2018 For A.Y. 2013-14 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-2(4), Panaji Dated 22.03.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer of disallowing of expenditure (other than the interest) of Rs.1,13,725 u/s 14A of I.T. Act read with Rule 8D(iii) despite the fact that no dividend income exempt from tax was received

MAHALASA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,PHONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), PANAJI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

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

section 40(a)(ia) will apply and the claim of assessee will fail. Alternatively, if it is found that the appellant is not having nominal members, then this ground will succeed. The AO may verify and give effect to the order accordingly.” while allowing the ground "additions made by learned AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.42,73

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, UDUPI., UDUPI vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK,, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.337/Pan/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank, Central Accounts Department, Tax Cell, Head Officer, Manipal. Pan : Aaccs4699E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.01/Pan/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.337/Pan/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Canara Bank (Erstwhile Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Syndicate Bank), F.M. Wing, Head Office, 112, J. C. Road, Bengaluru- 560002. Pan : Aaacc6106G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Ashwini D. Hosmani Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan Smt. S. Lalitha R. Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2023

73,900/- u/s 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer had not granted interest of refund u/s 244A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order allowed the ground of appeal relating to the addition of provision for bad and doubtful debts and upheld the addition of disallowance

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BELAGAVI vs. SH. GIRISH PRAKASH VERNEKAR, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

1,16,62,754 2011-2012 Rs. 50,16,427 Rs. 17,26,837 5 ITA No. 228/Pan./2017 & CO No. 27/Pan./2017 2012-2013 Rs. 5,17,23,279 Rs. 2,49,48,919 2013-2014 NIL Rs. 27,99,180 Total Rs.28,73,78,360 Rs. 4,37,07,261 Entire Credit Purchases of Rs.28,73