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

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

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 came in this second appeal seeking to overturn former deletion. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 20 DCIT Vs Esteem Industries

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

GOA P W D STAFF CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) PANAJI GOA, PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 107/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Goa Pwd Staff Co-Operative Credit Society Limited. Pwd New Building, Altinho, Panaji Goa-403 001. Pan : Aabag5329G . . . . . . . Appellant

94,466/- 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 by the disallowance matter travelled up in first appeal, wherein the Ld. NFAC partly allowed the appeal by confirming

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