M/S SESA RESOURS LTD (FORMERLY V. S. DEMPO & CO. PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2004-05 Sesa Resources Limied Vs. Acit, (Formerly V.S. Dempo & Co., Pvt. Circle-1(1), Aayakar Ltd.), Bhavan, Sesa Ghor, 20 Edc Complex, Edc Complex, Patto, Patto, Panaji, Panaji, Goa – 403 001. Goa. Pan: Aaacv7160R

penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Authority.” 6. On consideration of the above submissions of the assessee, the AO accepted the contentions of the assessee in so far as the disallowance of long- term capital loss is concerned. As regards the claim of the assessee u/s

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, Section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or ITAT-Panaji Page 13 of 18 M/s EID Parry

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, Section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or ITAT-Panaji Page 13 of 18 M/s EID Parry

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, Section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or ITAT-Panaji Page 13 of 18 M/s EID Parry

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, Section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or ITAT-Panaji Page 13 of 18 M/s EID Parry

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, Section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or ITAT-Panaji Page 13 of 18 M/s EID Parry

M/S SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TXATION), WARD -1, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 73/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

1-A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee assessee or the liability for penalty under Section 271-C of the Income -Tax. [ emphasis supplied] (iii) W.e.f. 01.07.2012, in a situation where the tax is paid by the deductee, the interest is to be computed up to the date of furnishing of return

DEVASHRI NIRMAN LLP ,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

section 271(1)(c) as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bom). 7 ITA No. 272/Pan./2017 15. In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, in our considered opinion, penalty u/s

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].

271(1)(c) of the Act revolves around ‘furnishing in accurate particulars of income’ in the return of income filed by the assessee. In view therefore, the rival parties restricted their respective arguments and counter arguments on the legal ground raised in the present appeal where we ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 10 SAAVUSSSN Vs ITO, Gokak ITA Nos.006/PAN/2025

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALI vs. M/S N. B. HIREMATH, HUBBALI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 111/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 30/11/2016, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALI vs. M/S N. B. HIREMATH, HUBBALI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 111/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 30/11/2016, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALI vs. M/S N. B. HIREMATH, HUBBALI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 111/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 30/11/2016, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact

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

271(1)(c) of the Act may kindly be confirmed, whereas the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards the relevant operative paras of the first appellate order and submitted that the AO failed to bring out the nature of concealment by the appellant either in the assessment order or in the penalty order, therefore, the ld.CIT

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

271(1)(c) of the Act may kindly be confirmed, whereas the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards the relevant operative paras of the first appellate order and submitted that the AO failed to bring out the nature of concealment by the appellant either in the assessment order or in the penalty order, therefore, the ld.CIT

M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED,MUDHOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 21/03/2006, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact

M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED,MUDHOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 21/03/2006, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact

M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED,MUDHOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 21/03/2006, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact

M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED,MUDHOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

penalty imposed in pursuance of such defective notice is not sustainable in law. He has placed on record, a copy of the said notices issued by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act, even dt. 21/03/2006, and pointed out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notices, the exact

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