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 order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the respective assessment years. 2. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing

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 order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the respective assessment years. 2. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing

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 order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the respective assessment years. 2. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing

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 order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the respective assessment years. 2. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing

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 order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the respective assessment years. 2. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing

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 order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the respective assessment years. 2. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing

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 order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the respective assessment years. 2. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing

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 order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the respective assessment years. 2. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing

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 order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the respective assessment years. 2. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing

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 order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the respective assessment years. 2. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing

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

4 5 6 7 (5+6) First Default 51,56,153 10,31,231 8,97,144 19,28,375 169/PAN/2025 2010-11 Second Default 2,17,24,095 43,44,819 37,79,976 81,24,795 First Default 3,37,15,200 33,71,520 30,51,226 64,22,746 170/PAN/2025 2011-12 Second Default - - - - First Default

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

4 5 6 7 (5+6) First Default 51,56,153 10,31,231 8,97,144 19,28,375 169/PAN/2025 2010-11 Second Default 2,17,24,095 43,44,819 37,79,976 81,24,795 First Default 3,37,15,200 33,71,520 30,51,226 64,22,746 170/PAN/2025 2011-12 Second Default - - - - First Default

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

4 5 6 7 (5+6) First Default 51,56,153 10,31,231 8,97,144 19,28,375 169/PAN/2025 2010-11 Second Default 2,17,24,095 43,44,819 37,79,976 81,24,795 First Default 3,37,15,200 33,71,520 30,51,226 64,22,746 170/PAN/2025 2011-12 Second Default - - - - First Default

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

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