DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI vs. SMT VANDA AFONSO, CALANGUTE

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

income of ₹13,04,645/-. The Assessment Order u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) was framed on 31/03/2014 after making an addition of ₹2,34,81,018/- on account of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3.2 The consequent to aforestated addition, a penalty proceedings u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI vs. SHRI EDGAR BRAZ AFONSO, CALANGUTE

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

income of ₹13,04,645/-. The Assessment Order u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) was framed on 31/03/2014 after making an addition of ₹2,34,81,018/- on account of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3.2 The consequent to aforestated addition, a penalty proceedings u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI vs. SHRI EDGAR BRAZ AFONSO, CALANGUTE

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

income of ₹13,04,645/-. The Assessment Order u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) was framed on 31/03/2014 after making an addition of ₹2,34,81,018/- on account of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3.2 The consequent to aforestated addition, a penalty proceedings u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI vs. SMT VANDA AFONSO, CALANGUTE

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

income of ₹13,04,645/-. The Assessment Order u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) was framed on 31/03/2014 after making an addition of ₹2,34,81,018/- on account of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3.2 The consequent to aforestated addition, a penalty proceedings u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI vs. PETER SOCCORO VAZ , CARANZALEM, GOA

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

income of ₹13,04,645/-. The Assessment Order u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) was framed on 31/03/2014 after making an addition of ₹2,34,81,018/- on account of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3.2 The consequent to aforestated addition, a penalty proceedings u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI vs. PETER SOCCORO VAZ , CARANZALEM, GOA

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

income of ₹13,04,645/-. The Assessment Order u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) was framed on 31/03/2014 after making an addition of ₹2,34,81,018/- on account of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3.2 The consequent to aforestated addition, a penalty proceedings u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI vs. MRS NATALINA VAZ., CARANZALEM, GOA

Appeals of the Revenue are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S S Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Sr

income of ₹13,04,645/-. The Assessment Order u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) was framed on 31/03/2014 after making an addition of ₹2,34,81,018/- on account of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3.2 The consequent to aforestated addition, a penalty proceedings u/s 271

BRAGANZA AND FULARI VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MAPUSA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.28/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Braganza & Fulari Ventures Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Circle-2(1), 303-304, 3Rd Floor, Panaji B&F Habitat Building, Canca Parra Bypass, Ximer Bardez, Mapusa, Goa – 403507 Pan : Aaecb3628E Appellant Respondent

addition was made by the AO, which is towards disallowance of expenses. This strictly falls within the ambit of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In that view of the matter, the penalty ought to have been levied only with reference to furnishing of inaccurate 5 Braganza and Fulari Ventures Private Limited particulars of income without having any reference

LUZITO SEBASTIAO RODRIGUES,SALCETE vs. ITO, INT. TXN. WARD`, PANAJI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Income-tax Act, 1961 (The Act'). The 2 ITA.No.12/PAN/2022 reasons given in this regard are patently erroneous and unjustified. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in taxing such cash deposit of Rs.5,38,000/- u/s 115BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

271. In light of the facts as discussed above an amount of Rs.105,77,75,066/-, as computed in the table in para 3.3.4 above is added to the total income of the assessee on account of suppression of sales value/under-invoicing. Penalty u/s 217 (1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 for suppression of income and for furnishing inaccurate

M/S SALITHO ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - M1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

271. In light of the facts as discussed above an amount of Rs.105,77,75,066/-, as computed in the table in para 3.3.4 above is added to the total income of the assessee on account of suppression of sales value/under-invoicing. Penalty u/s 217 (1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 for suppression of income and for furnishing inaccurate

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

271. In light of the facts as discussed above an amount of Rs.105,77,75,066/-, as computed in the table in para 3.3.4 above is added to the total income of the assessee on account of suppression of sales value/under-invoicing. Penalty u/s 217 (1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 for suppression of income and for furnishing inaccurate

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

Income Tax Rules, 1962 [‘the rules’] where assessee branch defaulted in obtaining Valid Form No 15G/15H as applicable [‘first default’] and (b) payment/credit of interest to depositors/customers exceeding ceiling of ₹10,000/- without deducting therefrom a TDS u/s 194A of the Act [‘second ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

Income Tax Rules, 1962 [‘the rules’] where assessee branch defaulted in obtaining Valid Form No 15G/15H as applicable [‘first default’] and (b) payment/credit of interest to depositors/customers exceeding ceiling of ₹10,000/- without deducting therefrom a TDS u/s 194A of the Act [‘second ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

Income Tax Rules, 1962 [‘the rules’] where assessee branch defaulted in obtaining Valid Form No 15G/15H as applicable [‘first default’] and (b) payment/credit of interest to depositors/customers exceeding ceiling of ₹10,000/- without deducting therefrom a TDS u/s 194A of the Act [‘second ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT

JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs. M/S WALLACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD, PANAJI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2 ITA.No.289 & 290/PAN./2019 2. The Revenue’s former appeal ITA.No.289/PAN./ 2019 for assessment year 2009-2010 raise the following substantive grounds : 1. “The order of CIT(A), Panaji-1 is bad in law ignoring the facts

JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, PANAJI vs. M/S WALLACE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD, PANAJI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2 ITA.No.289 & 290/PAN./2019 2. The Revenue’s former appeal ITA.No.289/PAN./ 2019 for assessment year 2009-2010 raise the following substantive grounds : 1. “The order of CIT(A), Panaji-1 is bad in law ignoring the facts