SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

penalty orders all dt. 30/09/2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) the Act were challenged u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act on 13/09/2023, 27/09/2023, 18/12/2023, 27/12/2023 & 29/12/2023 respectively. Admittedly, the appeals were filed with a substantial delay of 3270, 3248, 3366, 3375 & 3377 days beyond the statutory time period, hence also barred by limitation as prescribed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

penalty orders all dt. 30/09/2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) the Act were challenged u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act on 13/09/2023, 27/09/2023, 18/12/2023, 27/12/2023 & 29/12/2023 respectively. Admittedly, the appeals were filed with a substantial delay of 3270, 3248, 3366, 3375 & 3377 days beyond the statutory time period, hence also barred by limitation as prescribed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

penalty orders all dt. 30/09/2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) the Act were challenged u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act on 13/09/2023, 27/09/2023, 18/12/2023, 27/12/2023 & 29/12/2023 respectively. Admittedly, the appeals were filed with a substantial delay of 3270, 3248, 3366, 3375 & 3377 days beyond the statutory time period, hence also barred by limitation as prescribed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

penalty orders all dt. 30/09/2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) the Act were challenged u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act on 13/09/2023, 27/09/2023, 18/12/2023, 27/12/2023 & 29/12/2023 respectively. Admittedly, the appeals were filed with a substantial delay of 3270, 3248, 3366, 3375 & 3377 days beyond the statutory time period, hence also barred by limitation as prescribed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

penalty orders all dt. 30/09/2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) the Act were challenged u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act on 13/09/2023, 27/09/2023, 18/12/2023, 27/12/2023 & 29/12/2023 respectively. Admittedly, the appeals were filed with a substantial delay of 3270, 3248, 3366, 3375 & 3377 days beyond the statutory time period, hence also barred by limitation as prescribed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

penalty orders all dt. 30/09/2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) the Act were challenged u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act on 13/09/2023, 27/09/2023, 18/12/2023, 27/12/2023 & 29/12/2023 respectively. Admittedly, the appeals were filed with a substantial delay of 3270, 3248, 3366, 3375 & 3377 days beyond the statutory time period, hence also barred by limitation as prescribed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

penalty orders all dt. 30/09/2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) the Act were challenged u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act on 13/09/2023, 27/09/2023, 18/12/2023, 27/12/2023 & 29/12/2023 respectively. Admittedly, the appeals were filed with a substantial delay of 3270, 3248, 3366, 3375 & 3377 days beyond the statutory time period, hence also barred by limitation as prescribed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

penalty orders all dt. 30/09/2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) the Act were challenged u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act on 13/09/2023, 27/09/2023, 18/12/2023, 27/12/2023 & 29/12/2023 respectively. Admittedly, the appeals were filed with a substantial delay of 3270, 3248, 3366, 3375 & 3377 days beyond the statutory time period, hence also barred by limitation as prescribed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

penalty orders all dt. 30/09/2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) the Act were challenged u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act on 13/09/2023, 27/09/2023, 18/12/2023, 27/12/2023 & 29/12/2023 respectively. Admittedly, the appeals were filed with a substantial delay of 3270, 3248, 3366, 3375 & 3377 days beyond the statutory time period, hence also barred by limitation as prescribed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

penalty orders all dt. 30/09/2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) the Act were challenged u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act on 13/09/2023, 27/09/2023, 18/12/2023, 27/12/2023 & 29/12/2023 respectively. Admittedly, the appeals were filed with a substantial delay of 3270, 3248, 3366, 3375 & 3377 days beyond the statutory time period, hence also barred by limitation as prescribed

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

section. One cannot say that disallowance of expenses has resulted into `concealment of income for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’. The third category created by the ld. CIT(A) does not find its presence in any part of the provision. Qua one addition, it can either be a case of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of 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

271 11,02,864 10,47,721 21,50,585 171/PAN/2025 2014-15 Second Default 39,63,624 - 1,30,001 1,30,001 ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT ITA No. 169 to 171/PAN/2025 4.4 As a part of larger consolidation of public sector banks, the assessee Corporation Bank (along

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

271 11,02,864 10,47,721 21,50,585 171/PAN/2025 2014-15 Second Default 39,63,624 - 1,30,001 1,30,001 ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT ITA No. 169 to 171/PAN/2025 4.4 As a part of larger consolidation of public sector banks, the assessee Corporation Bank (along

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

271 11,02,864 10,47,721 21,50,585 171/PAN/2025 2014-15 Second Default 39,63,624 - 1,30,001 1,30,001 ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 30 Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Vs DCIT ITA No. 169 to 171/PAN/2025 4.4 As a part of larger consolidation of public sector banks, the assessee Corporation Bank (along

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

u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission of additional evidences produced

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

u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission of additional evidences produced

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

u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission of additional evidences produced

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