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

95,119/-. 3.2 On 16/04/2020 the aforestated ITR of the assessee was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act whereby deduction claimed u/s 80P of Chapter VI-A was denied to the assessee for defaulting in filing the return within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 12 Priyadarshani Mahila

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 the interest payment made as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) amounting to 30% the said of section 40(a)(ia) amounting to 30% the said payment of Rs.76,52,252/ payment of Rs.76,52,252/- i.e. Rs.22,95

M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (SALT) PVT. LTD,MORMUGAO vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 390/Pan/2017 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S Chowgule & Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd., Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa – 403803. Pan: Aabcc 5595 J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Ms Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull Am; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Panaji-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 09/10/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Tousled Out Of Order Of Assessment Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-2, Margoa [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 27/07/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 23

section 115JB of the Act, and same can find force in the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Ajanta Pharma Ltd Vs CIT” reported in 327 ITR 305 (SC) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in “Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT”, & “CIT Vs Gokaldas Images (P) Ltd.” reported at 429 ITR 526 (Kar), and a similar view

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/-.

95,284/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii), totaling to Rs. 1,61,85,201/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. In the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the ld. AO noted that AO did not record his non-satisfaction on the claim made by the assessee

SHIVA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(1), , BELGAVI

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 466/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shiva Credit Souharda Sahakari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Niyamit Belagavi Lig-41/A Mahantesh Nagar Belagavi (Respondent) [Pan: Aafts1405A] (Appellant) Appellant By None Respondent By Rijula Uniyal, Sr. D/R Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2022 Order Per Dr. M.L. Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Hubbballi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)] Dt. 28/11/2018, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, Challenging Therein The Disallowance Of Claim Of Deduction U/S 80 P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

disallowance aggregate to Rs.1,07,95,292/- by invoking provisions u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the assessee was held to be a co-operative bank. In support of the proposition that co-operative societies are not co-operative banks and that the claim of deduction under section

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI vs. M/S JAY RAM ORE CARRIERS, VASCO

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.227/Pan/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vs. M/S. Jay Ram Ore Goa. Carriers, 2Nd Floor, Sunflower Appts, Opp. St. Andrew Church, Vasco, Goa. Pan : Aaffj0752R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Assessee By : Shri R. D. Onkar Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Respondent-Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Operation Of Barge Of Contract. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed By The Appellant Firm On 29.07.2014 Declaring Total Income

disallowed the excess remuneration paid to the partners of Rs.1,38,95,958/- by holding that the remuneration is in excess of amount laid down under the provisions of section

MAGSONS SUPERCENTRE,PANAJI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU (JURISDICTIONAL AO: CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 14/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Magsons Supercentre, 707, Dayanand Bandodkar Marg, Miramar, Panaji Goa – 403001. . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan: Aacfm4886A बिाम / Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru.

95,320/-. The said return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act with an addition u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act thus determined the total income at ₹54,19,3330/- vide intimation dt. 30/09/2019. While doing so, the Ld. AO made a disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act with

KALIDAS CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,KAMATGI, BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Kalidas Co- Ito, Ward-1, Operative Credit Bagalkot Society Ltd. Near Choudeshwari Vs. Temple, Kamatgi, Tal: Hungund, Dist: Bagalkot, Karnataka-587120. Pan: Aaaak 9788 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Belagavi In Ita No.Cit(A)/Bgm/10172/2017-18 Dated 27.12.2018 Against The Order Passed By Ito, Ward-1, Bagalkot U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 31.10.2017 For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In The Present Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

95,715/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) of the Act which has been disallowed by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 13. The basis adopted by the ld. AO for the purpose of making disallowance relates to credit facilities provided to the category of members which are associate/nominal members. Further in respect

MINERAL FOUNDATION OF GOA,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

95,44,952/-. The Ld. AO calculated the actual receipts of the assessee amount to Rs.2,11,16,139/-. Accordingly calculated the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) at the rate of 15% which is amount to Rs.31,67,421/-. On other hand the assessee calculated the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) amount of Rs.60,65,330/- on gross income

M/S ADITI SCANS PVT. LTD,BIJAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, BIJAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am M/S Aditi Scans Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-1, Bijapur Shiva Kunja Chalukya Nagar (East) Solapur Road, Vijaypur, Vijaypur Pan No.Aagca 7255 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prasanth G.S., Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Prabhat Jha, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2021 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Gulbarga, Dated 29.11.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009- 2010, On The Following Grounds :- The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) In So Far As It Is Against The 1. Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed On A Total Loss 2. Of Rs. 15,76,829/- As Against The Lossof Rs.75,46,930/- Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Authorities Below Erred In Treating The Share Capital Of Rs. 3. 13,75,000/- As Unexplained Money Under Section 68 Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Order Of The Authorities Below Is Bad In Law As The Amount 4. Of Rs. 13,75,000/- Cannot Be Brought To Tax In The Hands Of The Appellant As The Mandatory Conditions To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act Have Not Been Satisfied Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 68 of the Act have not been satisfied under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 a) The authorities beloware not justified in treating the 5. unsecured loans of Rs.45,95,101/-as unexplainedon the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below erred in treating the loan transactions as bogus without proper examination under

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.

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 by treating it as capital expenditure for an amount of Rs. 20,76,892/-, for which the assessee went

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.

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 by treating it as capital expenditure for an amount of Rs. 20,76,892/-, for which the assessee went

SHRI ANANTANATH ALPASANKHYATAR VIVIDH UDDESHAGAL SOUHARD SAHAKARI SANGH NIY,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 006/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Anantanath Alpasankhyatar Vivid Uddheshagal Souhardha Sahakari Sangh Niyamit [‘Saavusssn’] 1738, Anantnath Building, Jain Galli, Main Rd., Kannur Niyamit Kalloli, Kalloli, Belagavi. Pan : Aagts1962B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Gokak, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sachin Nichal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Deshmukh Prakash [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed Against Din & Order 1070608483(1) Dt. 25/11/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Penalty Dt. 23/03/2022 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By The National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi [‘Ld. Nfeac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2009-10 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

95,945/- equal to 100% of tax ought to have evaded on the assessed income. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 10 SAAVUSSSN Vs ITO, Gokak ITA Nos.006/PAN/2025 AY: 2009-10 2.2 Meanwhile the findings of the Ld. AO & the assessment was challenged by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A), who reversed the findings of the Ld. AO and treating

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

95,392/- on OD account which was allowed by the Revenue in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act and no additions have been made in the WIP, which is not controverted by the learned Departmental Representative and rather conceded by ld DR. We have further observed that as per Accounting Standard AS-2 relating to the inventories

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

Section 148 for the said years. [E] During action U/S 132 on the Premise of RAJESH EXPORTS not a Single bill copy or any record on loose paper or any other evidence was found except alleged hard disk details fed by RAJESH EXPORTS. It is self serving evidence which has no evidentiary value. [F] HARD DISK seized was used against