SURAJ MELVIN MASCARENHAS,MIRAMAR vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 258/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Mrs. Suraj Melvin Masacarenhas 33, Lake View Colony, Miramar, Panaji Goa. Pan: Agipm3248G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Panaji, Goa ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. Dr

271(1)(c) were bad in law since the notice issued by him under above section for initiating penalty proceedings was in printed from without specifying grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings i.e. whether the same was issued for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Any other ground that may be urged

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].

143(3) of the Act completed by the ITO, Ward-1, Gokak [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] on 15/12/2011 whereby claim for 80P(2) deduction was entirely denied holding the assessee to be a ‘primary co-operative bank’ not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(4) r.w.s. 2(24)(via) of the Act, and thus assessed the total income

SHRI LALJI PURSHOTTAM DABHOYYA PATEL,ALTINHO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

143(3) of the Act by making the following additions:- i) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 ii) Unconfirmed creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 iii) Depreciation disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of Rs.9,90,009/- was imposed. In appeal, the learned

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI vs. SHRI LALJI PURUSHOTTAM BABHOYYA PATEL, ALTINHO

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

143(3) of the Act by making the following additions:- i) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 ii) Unconfirmed creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 iii) Depreciation disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of Rs.9,90,009/- was imposed. In appeal, the learned

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.2 The aforementioned order passed by the Ld. AO dislodging the claims of the assessee, was unsuccessfully challenged before the first appellate authority, and being aggrieved by the orders of tax ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 23 M/s Chowgule and Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd ITA No.: 390/PAN/2017, AY : 2012-2013, AABCC5595J

GIOVANNI JOHN MANUEL VAZ,VASCO-DA-GAMA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2001-02 Giovanni John Acit, Circle-1, Margao Manuel Vaz Vs. Karma Plaza, Vasco-Da- Gama, Goa - 403701 Pan: Acepv 5611 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Panaji In Ita No.53/Mrg/2007-08 Dated 02.07.2018 Against The Order Passed By Ito, Ward-5, Margao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For A.Y. 2001-02. 2. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In The Present Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

section 5A of the Act. Assessee is in the business of hotels, real estates and constructions having eight proprietary concerns for which he maintains separate profit and loss accounts and balance sheets. Return was filed by the assessee on 13.10.2001 reporting a total income of Rs. 2,80,800/-. In the course of assessment u/s 143

KAMAT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI

In the result the three appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gd Padmahshalii T A. No.137,138,139&140/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10,2010-11&2011-12) Kamat Construction Pvt The Assistant Ltd., F/2, Indira Vs. Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Circle Caetanoalburquerque 1(1),Panaji, Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan.No. Aaack8135H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (C) of the Act was stated to be initiated. The assessee preferred as appeal against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 against the impugned assessment order. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed an order dated 28-08-2015 deleting the additions

KAMAT CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result the three appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gd Padmahshalii T A. No.137,138,139&140/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10,2010-11&2011-12) Kamat Construction Pvt The Assistant Ltd., F/2, Indira Vs. Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Circle Caetanoalburquerque 1(1),Panaji, Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan.No. Aaack8135H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (C) of the Act was stated to be initiated. The assessee preferred as appeal against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 against the impugned assessment order. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed an order dated 28-08-2015 deleting the additions

KAMAT CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result the three appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gd Padmahshalii T A. No.137,138,139&140/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10,2010-11&2011-12) Kamat Construction Pvt The Assistant Ltd., F/2, Indira Vs. Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Circle Caetanoalburquerque 1(1),Panaji, Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan.No. Aaack8135H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (C) of the Act was stated to be initiated. The assessee preferred as appeal against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 against the impugned assessment order. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed an order dated 28-08-2015 deleting the additions

KAMAT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result the three appeals ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gd Padmahshalii T A. No.137,138,139&140/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10,2010-11&2011-12) Kamat Construction Pvt The Assistant Ltd., F/2, Indira Vs. Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Circle Caetanoalburquerque 1(1),Panaji, Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan.No. Aaack8135H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (C) of the Act was stated to be initiated. The assessee preferred as appeal against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 against the impugned assessment order. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed an order dated 28-08-2015 deleting the additions

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

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