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

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA. (14b) The central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of issuance of directions by the dispute resolution panel, so as to impart greater efficiency, transparency and account ability

M/S KAMAT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI., PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the reopening of assessment of the Appellant Firm by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of I.T. Act was valid, despite the fact that the said reopening had been done after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment

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

7. Ground of Appeal 1 I find that the appellant has raised questions on the validity of manner of determining income ix] s SA, by stating that, Income does not arise to spouses without following the process laid down in section SA and in particular without apportionment. Income arises only on apportionment and that by virtue of a fictional provision

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

7. Ground of Appeal 1 I find that the appellant has raised questions on the validity of manner of determining income ix] s SA, by stating that, Income does not arise to spouses without following the process laid down in section SA and in particular without apportionment. Income arises only on apportionment and that by virtue of a fictional provision

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

reassessment by issue of notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment u/s 147 of the Act completed wherein a solitary addition of 30% of total payments made to karigars (artisan labours) during the year was made. 3.3 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 4.9 to 4.12 which reads

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

reassessment by issue of notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment u/s 147 of the Act completed wherein a solitary addition of 30% of total payments made to karigars (artisan labours) during the year was made. 3.3 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 4.9 to 4.12 which reads

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

reassessment by issue of notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment u/s 147 of the Act completed wherein a solitary addition of 30% of total payments made to karigars (artisan labours) during the year was made. 3.3 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 4.9 to 4.12 which reads

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

reassessment by issue of notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment u/s 147 of the Act completed wherein a solitary addition of 30% of total payments made to karigars (artisan labours) during the year was made. 3.3 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 4.9 to 4.12 which reads

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

reassessment by issue of notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment u/s 147 of the Act completed wherein a solitary addition of 30% of total payments made to karigars (artisan labours) during the year was made. 3.3 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 4.9 to 4.12 which reads

BARDC BANK,BHATKAL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.294/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Vs National E – Pld Bank, Main Road, Assessment Centre . Uttara Kannada, Delhi-110001 Bhatkal S.O. Karnataka-581320. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully 5 ITA. No. 294/PAN/2024 BARDC Bank. and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year” 6. Further we found that the A.O has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 for reopening of assessment. Whereas the original assessment was completed u/sec

MARIA ESTIBEIRO,PANAJI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal stands ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Maria Estibeiro L/H Of Jacintodas Estibeiro 781, St. Marys Colony, Miramar, Goa. Pan:Aabpe2798N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal Captioned Appellant Impugns Din & Order No. 1060336601(1) Dt. 31/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012- 13 [‘Ay’].

section 5A of the Act were applicable. ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 28 Maria Estibeiro L/H of Jacintodas Estibeiro Vs DCIT, Panaji Goa ITA No.034/PAN/2024 AY:2012-13 The assessee Mr Jacintodas Estibeiro died on 9. 29/04/2011. In view thereof no return of his income was filed since AY 2011-12. The latest return filed by the deceased assessee

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2006-2007 M/S Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. Salgaonkar Bhava, Altino, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aabcs8862N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Impugns The Order Dt. 20/03/2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Dealt With Order Dt. 20/12/2011 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2006-07.[‘Ay’]

1 that the assessee in real sense has not raised any legal ground alleging the violation provisions of section 147 to 151 but claiming the Ld. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 16 M/s Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA No. 132/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 CIT(A) ought to have held the assessment one as without jurisdiction

MOUREEN CAMARA,PANAJI vs. ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 200/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Moureen Camara Lonic Apartment, 1St Floor, Albamar Road, Tiswadi, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Abmpc9038M . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Panaji. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057640303(1) Dt. 02/11/2023 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Stemmed From Assessment Order Dt. 20/09/2021 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.

1,17,82,160/-). ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 16 Moureen Camara Vs NFeAC ITA Nos.200/PAN/2023 AY: 2016-17 7. From written submission filed by the Revenue consisting copy of order sheet entries of assessment proceedings we observed that, the re-assessment proceedings was initiated by Ld. JAO and subsequently e-proceedings/Faceless regime coming into effect, the pending proceedings

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)

reassessment is bad in law, as it amounts to initiating of re-assessment proceedings prompted by mere change of opinion by holding that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is required to be added back to the book profits in view of retrospective effect insertion of clause (i) to Explanation (1) to section 115JB(1) w.r.e.f. 1.4.2001. 3. Being

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’]

section 131 of the Act, the case of the assessee by an order dt. 26/02/2021 issued u/s 127(2) of the Act was centralised and vide notice dt. 28/03/2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act the reassessment proceedings were initiated calling upon the assessee to file return in response thereto within 30 days therefrom. The assessee filed a return

SONALI MAHENDRA NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

reassessment order dt 24/09/2021 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act which was set-aside u/s 263 of the Act. Whereas Ground No 1 & 2 alleges violation of principle of natural justice and hence seeks to turn down the impugned order as irregular. Since the ground no 3 is not within bounds of 254(1

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 in terms of section 44AD

NANU RESORTS PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1., MARGAO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.393 & 394/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Nanu Resorts Pvt. Acit, Circle-1, Ltd. Margao Nanu House, Varde Vs. Valaulikar Road, Margao- Goa Pan: Aaacn 7114 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1, Panaji In Ita Nos.305 & 306/Mrg/2014-15 Dated 02.07.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao-Goa U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 25.10.2011 For Both A.Y. 2004-05 & A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Common Which Relates To Treatment Of Expenditure Incurred By The Assessee For Replacement Of Assets & Renovation As Revenue Or Capital In Nature. For Ay 2004-05, The Quantum Of Expenditure In Dispute Is Of Rs. 10,81,672/- & For Ay 2005-06 It Is Rs. 2,06,379/-. A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06 3. Before Us, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Represented The Department.

Section 148 of the Act, for which notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 22.03.2011. In the course of reassessment, inter-alia, Ld. A.O made a disallowance of expenses towards repairs and maintenance by treating it as capital expenditure for an amount of Rs. 20,76,892/-, for which the assessee went

NANU RESORTS PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1., MARGAO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.393 & 394/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Nanu Resorts Pvt. Acit, Circle-1, Ltd. Margao Nanu House, Varde Vs. Valaulikar Road, Margao- Goa Pan: Aaacn 7114 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1, Panaji In Ita Nos.305 & 306/Mrg/2014-15 Dated 02.07.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao-Goa U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 25.10.2011 For Both A.Y. 2004-05 & A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Common Which Relates To Treatment Of Expenditure Incurred By The Assessee For Replacement Of Assets & Renovation As Revenue Or Capital In Nature. For Ay 2004-05, The Quantum Of Expenditure In Dispute Is Of Rs. 10,81,672/- & For Ay 2005-06 It Is Rs. 2,06,379/-. A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06 3. Before Us, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Represented The Department.

Section 148 of the Act, for which notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 22.03.2011. In the course of reassessment, inter-alia, Ld. A.O made a disallowance of expenses towards repairs and maintenance by treating it as capital expenditure for an amount of Rs. 20,76,892/-, for which the assessee went