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

section 194A(3)(iii)(a) and possible view thereon. 194A(3)(iii)(a) and possible view thereon. 7. The Pr.CIT erred in directing the A. O to disallow interest payme T erred in directing the A. O to disallow interest payment nt of Rs. 8,96

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

96,666/- disallowing claim of deduction u/s 80P be struck down " after already holding "that the appellant is not a co-operative bank but a co- operative society” 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has no jurisdiction u/s 251 for remanding to AO or directing the AO to decide, subject

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

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.

section 14A of the Act is not applicable since it has not earned any exempt income during the year. Ld. AO rejecting the contention of the assessee proceeded to compute the disallowance by applying rule 8D and thus made a disallowance of Rs.28,94,090/- under rule 8D(2)(ii) and of Rs.1,13,725/- under rule 3 Kineco

SHANTADURGA MULTI PURPOSE SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT ,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BELAGAVI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 203 &204/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2015-16 & A.Y.2016-17) Shantadurga Multi Purpose Vs National E – Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Assessment Centre . Shop.No.13/14,Mangal Deep, Delhi-110001 Apartments Opp:Herwadkar, Belagavi-590006, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aahas7562F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Ramesh Mudhol.Ar Revenue By Smt. Manjula Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesse Against The Separate Orders Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Nfac/ Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act Applying The Provisions Of Section 80Ac Of The Act. 2. Since Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & A Consolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience

96,851/- and passed the order u/sec147r.w.s144B of the Act dated 15.03.2024. 3 ITA. No..203 & 204/PAN/2025 Shantadurga Multi Purpose souharda Sahakari Niyamit 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices

SHANTADURGA MULTI PURPOSE SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BELAGAVI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 203 &204/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2015-16 & A.Y.2016-17) Shantadurga Multi Purpose Vs National E – Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Assessment Centre . Shop.No.13/14,Mangal Deep, Delhi-110001 Apartments Opp:Herwadkar, Belagavi-590006, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aahas7562F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Ramesh Mudhol.Ar Revenue By Smt. Manjula Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesse Against The Separate Orders Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Nfac/ Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act Applying The Provisions Of Section 80Ac Of The Act. 2. Since Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & A Consolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience

96,851/- and passed the order u/sec147r.w.s144B of the Act dated 15.03.2024. 3 ITA. No..203 & 204/PAN/2025 Shantadurga Multi Purpose souharda Sahakari Niyamit 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices

INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,DONA PAULA vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. (c) Without prejudice to the ground numbers 2(a) & (b), the CIT(A) in not allowing the alternative ground of the appellant that the average of the value of investments which yielded exempted income alone is to be considered for calculating disallowance as per rule

ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., DONA PAULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. (c) Without prejudice to the ground numbers 2(a) & (b), the CIT(A) in not allowing the alternative ground of the appellant that the average of the value of investments which yielded exempted income alone is to be considered for calculating disallowance as per rule

THE CAMP MULTIPURPOSE PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PERNEM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), PANAJI, GOA

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances and the ratio

MUKTAR AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,VERNA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 41/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Goa Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, Sharma Shakti Bhavan, Edc Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa – 403 001 . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan:Aaacg7029G

96,280/-. Subsequently, the return was processed by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act by making adjustment of ₹30,05,030/-, on account of disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the aforestated additions u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, both these assessee’s taken up the matter before first appellate authority

GOA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 41/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Goa Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, Sharma Shakti Bhavan, Edc Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa – 403 001 . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan:Aaacg7029G

96,280/-. Subsequently, the return was processed by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act by making adjustment of ₹30,05,030/-, on account of disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the aforestated additions u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, both these assessee’s taken up the matter before first appellate authority

SHRI BRAHMANATH CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,NIPPANI vs. ITO 1 NIPPANI, NIPPANI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.66/Pan/2026 (A.Y. 2013-14 ) Shri Brahmanath Credit Vs I.T.O-Ward-1, Souhard Sahakari Sangh Nemchand Building, . Niyamat, 747,Ashoknagar, 185/C, Chikodi Road, Nippani-591237, Nippani, Karnataka. Belagavi-591237, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaas1063Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.U.G.Ammangi.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/Cit(A) U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Deduction Of Interest Income From Cooperative Society, Cooperative Banks & Nationalized Banks U/Sec80P(2)(D) Of The Act. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Is Engaged In Activities Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2013-14 On 2 Ita. No..66/Pan/2026 Shri Brahmanath Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit. 30.09.2013 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.Nil After Claiming Deduction Of Rs.78,06,780/- U/Sec 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. Subsequently The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Order U/Sec143(3) Of The Act Was Passed Disallowing The Claim U/Sec80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act Of Rs.78,06,780/- & Disallowance U/Sec40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Of Rs.76,274/- & Assessed The Total Income Of Rs.78,83,054/- Vide Order Dated21.07.2021.Aggrived By The Order, On Appeal To The Cit(A), The Appeal Was Partly Allowed & The Assessee Has Preferred Second Appeal Before The Honble Tribunal & Vide By Order

96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances and the ratio

SHRI MALLIKARJUN URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. ITO WARD 1 BELGAUM, BELGAUM

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances and the ratio

BARDC BANK,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.296 & 297/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Ito-Ward-1, Vs Pld Bank, Main Road, Santerikrupa, . Uttara Kannada, Kaigaroad, Bhatkal S.O. Habbuwada, Karnataka-581320. Karwar-581306, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances and the ratio

BARDC BANK,BHATKAL vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.296 & 297/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Ito-Ward-1, Vs Pld Bank, Main Road, Santerikrupa, . Uttara Kannada, Kaigaroad, Bhatkal S.O. Habbuwada, Karnataka-581320. Karwar-581306, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances and the ratio

SHRI HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGH LTD,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPPANI

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances and the ratio

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

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.116/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Shree Mahila Credit Souhard Vs Ito-Ward-2, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Shop.No.3, Maruti Complex, Civil Hospital Road 2 Nd Railway Gate, Tilakwadi, Belagavi-590001. Belgaum-500006, Karnataka. Karnataka. . Pan .No. Aabas9244A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Pramod Y Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Nfac/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Partially Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/Sec80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act Made By The Assessing Officer & Without Prejudice Alternate Relief U/Sec80P(2)(D) Of The Act & Sustaining Denial Of Deduction Of Interest On Income Tax Refund Under Section 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act.

96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances and the ratio

THE BRAHMALING MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, BELGAUM

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances and the ratio