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

37,15,200 33,71,520 30,51,226 64,22,746 170/PAN/2025 2011-12 Second Default - - - - First Default 1,11,99,271 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

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

37,15,200 33,71,520 30,51,226 64,22,746 170/PAN/2025 2011-12 Second Default - - - - First Default 1,11,99,271 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

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

37,15,200 33,71,520 30,51,226 64,22,746 170/PAN/2025 2011-12 Second Default - - - - First Default 1,11,99,271 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

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

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

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