GOA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED.,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), , PANAJI

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

disallowed the claim by stating that the appellant is not a developer but a nodal agency. The AO placed reliance on the ratio of decision of Hon'ble ITAT 'C' Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITA.No.1972/AHD/2014). 4.3. On perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is found that the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - (1), PANAJI vs. M/S GOA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED , PANAJI

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

disallowed the claim by stating that the appellant is not a developer but a nodal agency. The AO placed reliance on the ratio of decision of Hon'ble ITAT 'C' Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITA.No.1972/AHD/2014). 4.3. On perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is found that the facts

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

4. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO in the sum of Rs.1,17,09,419/- incurred abroad on account of supervision charges at discharge port and Rs.5,77,23,014/- incurred abroad on professional and consultancy fees by invoking the provisions of section 40 (a) of the Income

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

4. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO in the sum of Rs.1,17,09,419/- incurred abroad on account of supervision charges at discharge port and Rs.5,77,23,014/- incurred abroad on professional and consultancy fees by invoking the provisions of section 40 (a) of the Income

SMT ALICIA NINETTE FIALHO GONSALVES,ILHAS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.82/Pan/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Alicia Ninette Fialho Gonsalves H.No.203, Villa Gonsalves, Chimbel, Ilhas, Goa – 403 006 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Panaji Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 of the assessee’s claim for deduction of construction expenses of Rs. 29,00,838/- that were payable by the assessee to M/s. Buildtech Real Estate Developers [in short “M/s. BRED”] on 31.03.2012. As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities, the assessee had credited contract

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.

4), Panaji dated 22.03.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. The only issue in this appeal is in respect of disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule

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/-.

94,092/-. During the year, assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 1,08,793 which was claimed as exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceeding, ld. AO noted that assessee has not disallowed any amount towards expenses incurred in relation to earning the said exempted income. Ld. AO show caused the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), , BELGAVI vs. SHIVA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, BELGAVI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance made by the A.O. observing that the income earned from persons other than its regular members would not be eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and such income earned from business with persons other than the regular members would be taxable as income from business. Similar issue was placed for adjudication

THE VIVIDHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,NAVELIM, SANQUELIM, BICHOLIM vs. ITO, WARD - 2(3), PANAJI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowance and find no merit in Revenue’s arguments. It is made clear that hon'ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC) has settled the law in assessee’s favour and against the department so far as its status as a credit cooperative society as well

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’]

94 pages and case law compilation separately. The appellant Revenue equally filed a paper book containing 100 pages, both were referred/adverted in the course of hearing by the Ld. DR. In the absence of respondent assessee u/r 25 (supra) we have heard the appellant and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 perused aforestated material placed on records

THE KHANAPUR vs. S SANGH LTD,BELGAUMVS.PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

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

94,067/-]. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Pr.CIT erred in revising the original order u/s 143(3) on a debatable issue or when two legal views are possible as held by Supreme Court in the case of Max India reported in 295 ITR 283.Reference can also be made to CIT v Gokuldas

HEBBAL URBAN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT.,BELAGAVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GOKAK

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the explanation offered by the appellant and refrained from confirming the disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs. 6,94,510/- on the ground that, the appellant is not co-operative society

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PATTO PLAZA vs. ESTEEM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

4,21,90,816 viz; (i) addition of representing modvat/cenvat credit attributable to closing inventory u/s 145A of the Act and (ii) disallowance of capital expenditure of ₹1,94,57,703/- relating to technical know-how. Aggrieved by the first addition, the assessee filed an appeal which the Ld. NFAC allowed by reversing the alleged addition. Aggrieved thereby the Revenue

THE KARNATAKA KARAVALI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ATHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (4), BELGAUM, BELAGAVI

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the ld.CIT(A), but, remained empty handed as the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the first 2 ITAs No.457 & 458/PAN/2018 appellate authority by observing that the assessee has admitted to have nominal/associate members more than 15% of its regular membership

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI vs. M/S MILROC GOOD EARTH PROPERTY AND DEVELOPERS LLP, PANAJI

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee in CO No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 26/Pan/2018 ""या"ेपसं./Co.No.06/Pan/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.26/Pan/2018) "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Milroc Good Earth Property & Developers Llp, 501, 5Th Floor Milroc Lar Menezes, S.V. Road, Panaji-Goa - 403001 Pan : Aaacg7222M ……""यथ" / Respondent

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). In so far the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.1,61,56,414/-(supra) was concerned, it was observed by the CIT (Appeals), that a similar addition that was made in the case of the assessee for the immediately preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 was deleted

THE SANKHLI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,SANKHLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 058/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15

94,151/- was finally determined at ₹59,54,146/- which solitarily represented by disallowance of ₹51,56,366/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and income brought to tax u/h income from other sources of ₹3,39,677/-. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 The Sankhali Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO ITA Nos.058/PAN/2025

NANU RESORTS PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1., MARGAO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.393 & 394/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Nanu Resorts Pvt. Acit, Circle-1, Ltd. Margao Nanu House, Varde Vs. Valaulikar Road, Margao- Goa Pan: Aaacn 7114 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None 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: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1, Panaji In Ita Nos.305 & 306/Mrg/2014-15 Dated 02.07.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao-Goa U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 25.10.2011 For Both A.Y. 2004-05 & A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Common Which Relates To Treatment Of Expenditure Incurred By The Assessee For Replacement Of Assets & Renovation As Revenue Or Capital In Nature. For Ay 2004-05, The Quantum Of Expenditure In Dispute Is Of Rs. 10,81,672/- & For Ay 2005-06 It Is Rs. 2,06,379/-. A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06 3. Before Us, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Represented The Department.

94,64,838/-. Subsequently, Ld. AO noted income escaping assessment and invoked the provision of Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act, for which notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 22.03.2011. In the course of reassessment, inter-alia, Ld. A.O made a disallowance of expenses towards repairs and maintenance

NANU RESORTS PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1., MARGAO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.393 & 394/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Nanu Resorts Pvt. Acit, Circle-1, Ltd. Margao Nanu House, Varde Vs. Valaulikar Road, Margao- Goa Pan: Aaacn 7114 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None 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: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1, Panaji In Ita Nos.305 & 306/Mrg/2014-15 Dated 02.07.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao-Goa U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 25.10.2011 For Both A.Y. 2004-05 & A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Common Which Relates To Treatment Of Expenditure Incurred By The Assessee For Replacement Of Assets & Renovation As Revenue Or Capital In Nature. For Ay 2004-05, The Quantum Of Expenditure In Dispute Is Of Rs. 10,81,672/- & For Ay 2005-06 It Is Rs. 2,06,379/-. A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06 3. Before Us, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Represented The Department.

94,64,838/-. Subsequently, Ld. AO noted income escaping assessment and invoked the provision of Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act, for which notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 22.03.2011. In the course of reassessment, inter-alia, Ld. A.O made a disallowance of expenses towards repairs and maintenance

ALLAVUDDIN UMMARASAB HURAKADLI,MAPUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.229/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) Allavuddin Unmarasab Vs National Faceless Hurakadli, Assessment Centre, H,No.354, New Delhi-110003 Shetty Wada, Mapusa-403507, Goa.

section 69C of the act and made addition of Rs.4,81,109/- as unexplained expenditure. 3. Further on the second disputed issue, the assesse has claimed deduction u/sec80C of the Act of Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of Housing loan repayment to The Jana Utkarsh Urban Coop credit Society Ltd. Whereas the A.O is of the view that the said