JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

reassessment notice is bad in law and the assessment is a nullity. The above submission does not find support from Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein section SA reads as under: 5A. Apportionment of income between spouses governed by Portuguese Civil Code.- (1) Where the husband and wife are governed by the system of community of property (known under the Portuguese

JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

reassessment notice is bad in law and the assessment is a nullity. The above submission does not find support from Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein section SA reads as under: 5A. Apportionment of income between spouses governed by Portuguese Civil Code.- (1) Where the husband and wife are governed by the system of community of property (known under the Portuguese

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI, GOA vs. BAGKIYA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, GOA

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Sf-3, Building No.-3. Techno Cidade, Chogam Rd., Alto Porvorim, Goa-403521. Pan: Aaccb9382M . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: None For The Respondent Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Revenue’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(2) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges The Order Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Wheeled From The Order Dt. 25/08/2021 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18.[‘Ay’]

business premises of the assessee wherein several incrementing materials [‘IMs’] representing suppression of income were found & impounded under s/s (3) of 133A of the Act and were confronted to the assessee before proceedings thereon. ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 39 ACIT Vs M/s Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 148/PAN/2025 AY: 2017-18 3.3 Based on such impounded survey material

MR. AGNELO SOCORRO JOAQUIM VIEGAS,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 069/Pan/2025 & Sa 06/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Agnelo Socorro Joaquim Viegas H. No. 373, Galliwaddo, Taleigao, Caranzalem, Goa-403002. Pan : Akapv9049C . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Sanket Deshmukh[‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1073026397(1) Dt. 07/02/2025 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals(2), Ahmedabad [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Sprung Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 27/12/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income

reassessment notice the appellant filed his return declaring income of ₹1,53,590/- and claimed that the said income was offered on presumptive taxation basis. The said return was subjected to scrutiny and the appellant was called upon to adduce documentary evidence in support of his claim of carrying business

AMRARAM GOMAJI CHOWDHARY,NAVELIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, MARGAO

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 117/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Amraram Gomaji Chowdhary 457/C, Aquem Baixo, Firgulem, Navelim, Goa-403707. Pan : Aqjpc0124C . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-(1), Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pradeep Kulkarni [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Manju Thakur [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074431239(1) Dt. 12/03/2025 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 Assessment Dt. 29/02/2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

reassessment notice issued u/ 148 of the Act the assessee filed his return declaring income of ₹4,78,990/- on presumptive taxation basis which was computed @8% of total cash deposits of ₹60,58,430/-. The information received through NMS system was reconfirmed u/s 133(6) of the Act which revealed to the Ld. AO that, the cash deposit

M/S TERECOM (P) LTD.,GOA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), PANAJI., PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

business of manufacturing & trading of optical fibre cable & accessories, insulated wires & power cables and telecom instruments etc. The Return of Income for the 2 assessment year 2009-10 was filed on 30.09.2009 disclosing Rs.Nil income under the normal provisions of book profit of Rs.14,60,06,022/- u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Against the said

SHREE MALLIKARJUN SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

business of Barge Transportation charges, traders in Iron ore including export and cargo handling services from infrastructure facility developed under the Boot. The assessee has filed the return of income for A.Y.2007-08 on 31.10 .2007 disclosing a total income of Rs.80,21,230/-. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

business of gold & silver jewellery & bullion etc. For AY 2018- ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 16 M/s Potdar Brothers ITA Nos.175 to 177 & 179 to 180/PAN/2025 19 the assessee filed its return of income [‘ITR’ hereinafter] on 26/10/2018 declaring total income of ₹1,54,36,889/- which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3.2 On Potdar Group

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

business of gold & silver jewellery & bullion etc. For AY 2018- ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 16 M/s Potdar Brothers ITA Nos.175 to 177 & 179 to 180/PAN/2025 19 the assessee filed its return of income [‘ITR’ hereinafter] on 26/10/2018 declaring total income of ₹1,54,36,889/- which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3.2 On Potdar Group

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

business of gold & silver jewellery & bullion etc. For AY 2018- ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 16 M/s Potdar Brothers ITA Nos.175 to 177 & 179 to 180/PAN/2025 19 the assessee filed its return of income [‘ITR’ hereinafter] on 26/10/2018 declaring total income of ₹1,54,36,889/- which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3.2 On Potdar Group

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

business of gold & silver jewellery & bullion etc. For AY 2018- ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 16 M/s Potdar Brothers ITA Nos.175 to 177 & 179 to 180/PAN/2025 19 the assessee filed its return of income [‘ITR’ hereinafter] on 26/10/2018 declaring total income of ₹1,54,36,889/- which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3.2 On Potdar Group

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

business of gold & silver jewellery & bullion etc. For AY 2018- ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 16 M/s Potdar Brothers ITA Nos.175 to 177 & 179 to 180/PAN/2025 19 the assessee filed its return of income [‘ITR’ hereinafter] on 26/10/2018 declaring total income of ₹1,54,36,889/- which was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3.2 On Potdar Group

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI., SELECT CITY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

business of the FY relevant to AY 2012-13. It is also evident that the AO has allowed the Claim of expenditure without inquiring into the claim, and has not made the verification which should have been made. 5. In view of the above, I hold that the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) is erroneous