THE OMKAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BELAGAVI

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 84/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Omkar Urban Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd. A/P. : Kangral (Bk.), Belagavi. Pan: Aaaat3508P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, for cash credits based on deposits in bank, without going through the books of accounts maintained by the Appellant 6. Because, the Assessing Officer has wrongly disallowed

M/S ADITI SCANS PVT. LTD,BIJAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, BIJAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am M/S Aditi Scans Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-1, Bijapur Shiva Kunja Chalukya Nagar (East) Solapur Road, Vijaypur, Vijaypur Pan No.Aagca 7255 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prasanth G.S., Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Prabhat Jha, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2021 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Gulbarga, Dated 29.11.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009- 2010, On The Following Grounds :- The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) In So Far As It Is Against The 1. Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed On A Total Loss 2. Of Rs. 15,76,829/- As Against The Lossof Rs.75,46,930/- Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Authorities Below Erred In Treating The Share Capital Of Rs. 3. 13,75,000/- As Unexplained Money Under Section 68 Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Order Of The Authorities Below Is Bad In Law As The Amount 4. Of Rs. 13,75,000/- Cannot Be Brought To Tax In The Hands Of The Appellant As The Mandatory Conditions To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act Have Not Been Satisfied Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 68 of the Act have not been satisfied under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 a) The authorities beloware not justified in treating the 5. unsecured loans of Rs.45,95,101/-as unexplainedon the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below erred in treating the loan transactions as bogus without proper examination under

SHRI SAI CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,CHIKODI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowing section 80P deduction claims of Rs.8,68,573/- and Rs.26,70,100/- respectively; for the sole reason that Saouhard

SHRI VEERRANI MALLAMMA URBAN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD,BELGAVI vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), BELGAVI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowing section 80P deduction claims of Rs.8,68,573/- and Rs.26,70,100/- respectively; for the sole reason that Saouhard

SHREE AMBEY FORGING PRIVAT LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - (4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse or their AE has not taken any benefit or exemption / deduction under the Income Tax Act. The Id AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, 4) has willfully ignored that the assesee

SCORPIO IRON LTD,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse or their AE has not taken any benefit or exemption / deduction under the Income Tax Act. The Id AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, 4) has willfully ignored that the assesee

THE ATHANI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ATHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BELAGAVI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

68 of the Income Tax Act, for cash credits based on deposits in bank, without going through the books of accounts maintained by the Appellant. 6. The appellant craves leave to add and or alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Coming to the first and foremost issue of the assessee

THE PONDA EDUCATION SOCIETY EMPLOYEE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), PANAJI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowing its section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.93,846/- deduction, 80P(2)(d) deduction of Rs.4,68,206/-; respectively

ZUARI MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD.,GOA vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Zuari Management Services Ltd. (Erstwhile Zuari Infrastructure & Developers Ltd., Formerly Zuari Sez Ltd.) Jai Kisaan Nagar, Zuari Nagar, Goa. Pan: Aaacz2903Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Salil Kapoor [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar N [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

68,279/- incurred towards ROC Charges, legal & other expenses etc., was disallowed u/s 37(1) for the want of documentary evidence & in absence of corroborative explanation etc. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 34 M/s Zuari Management Services Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA No. 085/PAN/2020 AY: 2009-10 2.4 Aggrieved assessee challenged former assessment in an appeal u/s 246A r.w.s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi M/S. Manipal Technologies Limited, Vs. Udayavani Building, Manipal- 576104. Pan: Aabcm 9516 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Department Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangaluru In Appeal No. Ita No. 10030/Udp/Cit(A)Mng/2016-17 Dated 27.11.2017 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle- 1, Udupi Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2016. 2. There Are Six Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Department In The Present Appeal, All Of Which Relate To The Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The Act R.W.R. 8D(2)(Ii) & 8D(2)(Iii) Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Rules), Amounting To Rs. 1,61,65,201/-.

section 10(34) of the Act. We are therefore of the view that it would be in the interest of equity and justice if the assessee makes its claim in this regard before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer will examine the claim of the assessee and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law and as explained

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

68,152/- @ 12% of the debit balance of Rs.1,30,67,934/- and passed the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.2. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 28.05.2018 rejected the ground of the assessee

SHRI JINNAPPANNA CHOUGULE LALBAHADUR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BELGAUM

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.274,275 & 276/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16,2017-18 & 2018-19 ) Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Vs I T O, Lalbahadur Credit Souhard National E Assessment . Sahakari Niyamit, Centre, 2471,Lalbahadur Delhi. Akkamahadevi Chowk, Shirguppi Athani, Belagavi-591242, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aagas8466F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.22,60,074/- and similarly find that the assessee has debited to profit & loss account income tax paid of Rs.6,08,090/- and provision for bad and doubtful debts of Rs.8,00,000/- which is not admissible claim and made disallowance and assessed the total income of Rs.36,68

SHRI JINNAPPANNA CHOUGULE LALBAHADUR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BELGAUM

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.274,275 & 276/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16,2017-18 & 2018-19 ) Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Vs I T O, Lalbahadur Credit Souhard National E Assessment . Sahakari Niyamit, Centre, 2471,Lalbahadur Delhi. Akkamahadevi Chowk, Shirguppi Athani, Belagavi-591242, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aagas8466F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.22,60,074/- and similarly find that the assessee has debited to profit & loss account income tax paid of Rs.6,08,090/- and provision for bad and doubtful debts of Rs.8,00,000/- which is not admissible claim and made disallowance and assessed the total income of Rs.36,68

SHRI JINNAPPANNA CHOUGULE LALBAHADUR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,2471, LALBAHADUR AKKAMAHADEVI CHOWK, SHIRGUPPI ATH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BELGAUM

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.274,275 & 276/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16,2017-18 & 2018-19 ) Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Vs I T O, Lalbahadur Credit Souhard National E Assessment . Sahakari Niyamit, Centre, 2471,Lalbahadur Delhi. Akkamahadevi Chowk, Shirguppi Athani, Belagavi-591242, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aagas8466F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.22,60,074/- and similarly find that the assessee has debited to profit & loss account income tax paid of Rs.6,08,090/- and provision for bad and doubtful debts of Rs.8,00,000/- which is not admissible claim and made disallowance and assessed the total income of Rs.36,68

JAI HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 2(1), BELAGAVI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 80P(2)(a)(i) deductions of Rs.34,04,313/- Rs.14,68,917/- and Rs.36,10,456/- respectively, for the sole reason that they are registered under Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 then an eligible assessee covered u/s.2(19) of the Act applicable in case of a 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings against

SHRI MAHALAXMI CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,KUNNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 80P(2)(a)(i) deductions of Rs.34,04,313/- Rs.14,68,917/- and Rs.36,10,456/- respectively, for the sole reason that they are registered under Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 then an eligible assessee covered u/s.2(19) of the Act applicable in case of a 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings against

SHRI BRAHMANATH CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,NIPANI vs. ITO, WARD - 1 , NIPANI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 80P(2)(a)(i) deductions of Rs.34,04,313/- Rs.14,68,917/- and Rs.36,10,456/- respectively, for the sole reason that they are registered under Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 then an eligible assessee covered u/s.2(19) of the Act applicable in case of a 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings against

SURAJDATTA SAGUN MORAJKAR,NERUL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI GOA, PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Surajdatta Sagun Morajkar C/O. Sun Estate Developers, Next To Sal De Goa, Bhatti Waddo, Bardez, Goa-403114 Pan : Aempm7614J . . . . . . . Appellant

section 5A of the Act was for the year under consideration engaged in the business of real estate development and construction in the name & style of ‘Sun Estate Developer’ and also a partner in M/s ‘SM Venture.’ The assessee filed his return of income on 30/03/2018 declaring total income at ₹4,47,72,090/- which was subjected to scrutiny