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

9. Aggrieved, appellant company is before us alleging the action of both the tax authorities as prejudiced on the basis of TDS assessment and adverting the ground number 8 first submitted that the tax authorities overlooked the existence of reasonable cause in not complying with the provisions of section 194C and in supports its contention relied upon relevant judicial precedents

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

9. Aggrieved, appellant company is before us alleging the action of both the tax authorities as prejudiced on the basis of TDS assessment and adverting the ground number 8 first submitted that the tax authorities overlooked the existence of reasonable cause in not complying with the provisions of section 194C and in supports its contention relied upon relevant judicial precedents

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

9. Aggrieved, appellant company is before us alleging the action of both the tax authorities as prejudiced on the basis of TDS assessment and adverting the ground number 8 first submitted that the tax authorities overlooked the existence of reasonable cause in not complying with the provisions of section 194C and in supports its contention relied upon relevant judicial precedents

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

9. Aggrieved, appellant company is before us alleging the action of both the tax authorities as prejudiced on the basis of TDS assessment and adverting the ground number 8 first submitted that the tax authorities overlooked the existence of reasonable cause in not complying with the provisions of section 194C and in supports its contention relied upon relevant judicial precedents

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

section 28 or of any receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature included in such profits; The receipts from construction business amounting to Rs. 2,43,05,846/- is clearly covered under explanation (baa) to Sec. 80HHC, and is not related to the export business of the assessee. The receipts

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

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 at the time of hearing of appeal.” 2. Briefly stated, the assessee had filed her 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

9. Percentage of Completion Method 9.1 Under the percentage of completion method, the amount of revenue recognised is determined by reference to the stage of completion of the contract activity at the end of each accounting period. The advantage of this method of accounting for contract revenue is that it reflects revenue in the accounting period during which activity

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

9. By the first appeals against 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

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

9. By the first appeals against 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

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

9. By the first appeals against 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

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

9. By the first appeals against 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

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

9. By the first appeals against 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

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

9. By the first appeals against 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

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

9. By the first appeals against 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

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

9. By the first appeals against 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

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

9. By the first appeals against 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

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

9. By the first appeals against 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

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].

section 80P(4) r.w.s. r.w.s. 2(24)(via) of the Act, has been squarely overturned vide para 9 (placed at pg 4/7) by the Ld. CIT(A) in it order dt. 30/06/2018. By the said order, the Ld. CIT(A) per-se reinstated the appellant’s status as ‘co-operative society’ [on the basis of para 3 of assessment order

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

9. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read as under:- “1. The Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271