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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance made by the AO under section 14A r/w section 8(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules for a sum of Rs. 14,88

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance made by the AO under section 14A r/w section 8(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules for a sum of Rs. 14,88

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

PARKKOT MARITIME AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,GOA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, MARGAO., MARGAO

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

disallowance made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji-I, has greatly relied on the observations of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax based on the provisions of Section 80-I. Section 80-I has lost its applicability and relevance with effect from 1-4- 1991 when Section

PARKKOT MARITIME AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,GOA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

disallowance made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji-I, has greatly relied on the observations of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax based on the provisions of Section 80-I. Section 80-I has lost its applicability and relevance with effect from 1-4- 1991 when Section

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/-.

section 10(34) of the Act. We are therefore of the view that it would be in the interest of equity and justice if the assessee makes its claim in this regard before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer will examine the claim of the assessee and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law and as explained

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

88,110/- [rounded-off] vide order dated 26.12.2007. 2.1. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened after recording the reasons and a notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 28.03.2011 was issued to the assessee. The reasons for reopening of the assessment by the A.O. was that in the capital account of it’s partners

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)

section 139(5) of the Act and observes that in the absence of filing a revised return within the time allowed, the claim cannot be accepted and deduction u/sec57(iv) of the Act is denied and is rejected. Finally the A.O. disallowed the carry forward of losses setoff of Rs.1,49,05,760/- and assessed the total income of Rs.3

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

88,00,739/- claimed by the assessee on transfer of shares in its subsidiary company Dempo Industries Pvt. Ltd., was disallowed, since the sale of shares to its subsidiary was not a transfer as defined in Sec. 47(iv) of the I.T. Act; and b) The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80HHC of Rs. 8,86,67,072/- against which

MAVINKURVE PRIMARY FISHERIES SOCIETY LIMITED,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 283/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Mavinkurve Primary Fisheries, Vs Ito-Ward-1, Society Limited. Santerikrupa, . Bunder Road, Kaigaroad, Bhatkal, Habbuwada, Noth Kanara-581320, Karwar-581306, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No.Aabam8664L (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

section 80P of the Act and also the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions and judicial decisions and denied the claim of deduction u/sec80P of the act of Rs.13,33,673/- and similarly made 3 ITA. No. 283/PAN/2025 The Mavinkurve Primary Fisheries Society. disallowance u/sec40(a)(ai) of the Act in respect of commission

VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MARDOL, PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

SHRI JAI JINENDRA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 NIPANI, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

VARDHAMAN URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 BELGAUM, BELGAUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

SHREE MAHILA CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. ITO WARD 1 BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MARDOL, PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI, GOA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

KAIGA PROJECT EMPLOYEES THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY,KARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

HAVYAKA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 KARWAR, KARWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

SHRI JAI JINENDRA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into

AKSHAYA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,KARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), KARWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The AO did not allow the deduction to the appellant u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 11,83,37,803/-. Page 28 of 36 Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. 6.1.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the appellant co-operative society was engaged into