SHRI RAMPURUSH MANDIR SOCIETY,CUNCOLIM vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 75 & 76/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2022-23 Shri Rampurush Mandir Society Veroda, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa-403703. Pan : Aadas9268E . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Twin Appeals Of The Appellant Assessee Impugns Separate Din & Orders Both Dt. 10/03/2025 Passed By The Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals(2), Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Emanated Out Of Respective Summary Assessment Dt. 23/09/2022 & 16/03/2023 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Years 2021- 22 & 2022-23 [‘Ays’ Hereinafter].

12. Now coming to applicability of s/s (2) of section 167B of the Act. There was much less to be convinced with the argument of the Ld. Gupta that, s/s (2) applies blanketly to all AOP/BOI. It is miscoined by the Revenue that, the provisions of s/s (2) covers the cases other than cases falls

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

GOURISH GOPINATH DESAI ,KARWAR vs. ITO -2, KARWAR , UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 284,285 & 286/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2014-15 ) Gourish Gopinath Desai, Vs Ito-Ward-2, Katgal Kumta, Aayakar Bhavan, . Uttar Kannada-581444, Karwar-581301, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan No:Bfwpd9695E

section 68 of the Act(i)opening balance of Rs.10,29,558/- and (ii) similarly Rs.9,94,319/- and assessed the total income of Rs.23,35,660/- and passed the order u/sec 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 03.05.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas

GOURISH GOPINATH DESAI,UTTAR KANNADA vs. ITO -2, KARWAR, KARWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 284,285 & 286/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2014-15 ) Gourish Gopinath Desai, Vs Ito-Ward-2, Katgal Kumta, Aayakar Bhavan, . Uttar Kannada-581444, Karwar-581301, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan No:Bfwpd9695E

section 68 of the Act(i)opening balance of Rs.10,29,558/- and (ii) similarly Rs.9,94,319/- and assessed the total income of Rs.23,35,660/- and passed the order u/sec 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 03.05.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas

GOURISH GOPINATH DESAI,UTTAR KANNADA vs. ITO -2, KARWAR, KARWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 284,285 & 286/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2014-15 ) Gourish Gopinath Desai, Vs Ito-Ward-2, Katgal Kumta, Aayakar Bhavan, . Uttar Kannada-581444, Karwar-581301, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan No:Bfwpd9695E

section 68 of the Act(i)opening balance of Rs.10,29,558/- and (ii) similarly Rs.9,94,319/- and assessed the total income of Rs.23,35,660/- and passed the order u/sec 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 03.05.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas

JAGDISH SAVANT,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BELGAUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.227/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Jagdish Shambhu Savant, Vs Ito-Ward-4, 102,Kaivalya Residency, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Budhwar Peth, Civil Hospital Road Belagavi-590006, Belagavi-590001. Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Assps9453P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

12-9-25) Revenue by Shri.Ish Gupta.Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 16.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख 17.09.2025 /Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act. 2. The brief facts

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,BELGAUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 BELGAUM, BELGAUM

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 217/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt Ltd, Vs Acit-Circle 1, 12, Kwality House, Civil Hospital Road, . Machhe Industrial Area, Belagavi-590001. Machhe, Karnataka. Belgaum-590014, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aabck0589J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

12, Kwality House, Civil Hospital Road, . Machhe Industrial Area, Belagavi-590001. Machhe, Karnataka. Belgaum-590014, Karnataka. PAN .No. AABCK0589J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant by Shri.Pramod Vaidhya.AR Respondent by Shri.Ravindra Hattalli.Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 18.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2025 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal is filed by the assesse

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

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

section 5A of the Act is automatic or voluntary? And whether such application confined merely to returned income? 3. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that; 3.1 the assessee an individual was identified as non-filer. Upon receipt of information that for the year under consideration the assessee deposited cash of ₹12,32,000/- & ₹68

SHASHIKALA BHIMACHARYA MALAGI,GOKAK, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, WARD-1, GOKAK, GOKAK, KARNATKA

The appeal is partly allowed in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 180/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shashikala Bhimacharya Malagi 0, Soubhagya, Kalyan Housing Colony, Gokak, Belgaum-591307 Pan : Bdypm3708B . . . . . . .Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gokak. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Himanshu Gandhi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. 1055706480(1) Dt. 04/09/2023 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. 20/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

12 Shashikala Bhimacharya Malagi Vs ITO ITA Nos.180/PAN/2023 AY: 2017-18 11. Without reproducing stock barrel & lock of provisions of section 115BBE of the Act it shall suffice to state that, at the relevant time the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act had/has twofold prescriptions viz; (A) as at the FA, 2012 applicable w.e.f. 01/04/2013; it prescribed

SRITHIK ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED,GOA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) PANAJI,GOA, PANAJI,GOA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year: 2016-17 Srithik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 3, Sanguem Industrial Estate, Sanguem, Goa-403704 Pan : Aaics1765P . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By: Mrs Girija Agrawal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing: 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges Din & Order No 1068425181(1) Dt. 06/09/2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Act Which Originated From Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. [‘Ld. Ao’].

68 of the Act. Aggrieved by aforestated assessment the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC on 17/01/2019 which was dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution. 5. Aggrieved assessee came in present appeal on as many as nine grounds, which are since inconsonance with rule 8 of ITAT Rules1963, hence reproduction thereof for adjudication in verbatim is dispensed with. ITAT

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

68,52,377/- & added to the income declared. 4. The said addition was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and the ITAT. In connection with this addition, penalty was also levied. In the penalty order also the assessee’s claim 3 ITA No. 272/Pan./2017 was rejected that as per AS-7 offering profit under percentage completion method, the profit

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

NAVANIRMAN MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BELAGAVI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 116/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navanirman Multipurpose Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Laxmi Nagar, Hindalaga, Dist. Belagavi.-591108 Pan : Aacan0420G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; By Captioned Appeal The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1074658686(1) Dt. 18/03/2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 15/02/2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By National Faceless E- Asstt Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

68 taxmann.com 298 (Ker)]. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR Uniyal sought our attention to para 5 of the Ld. Co-ordinate bench’s decision and pressing into service subsequent decision of Hon’ble Kerala High ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 10 Navanirman Multipurpose Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO ITA Nos.116/PAN/2025 AY: 2016-17 Court in ‘Nileshwar Rangekallu

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 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, MARGAO., MARGAO vs. M/S SALGAONCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

section 41(1) of the Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aircel Cellular Ltd. vs. CIT, 45 taxmann.com 55 (Guj.). The ld. CIT(A) had fell in serious error in confirming the addition merely going by the fact that the assessee itself

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE., MARGAO

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

section 41(1) of the Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aircel Cellular Ltd. vs. CIT, 45 taxmann.com 55 (Guj.). The ld. CIT(A) had fell in serious error in confirming the addition merely going by the fact that the assessee itself

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)

68,164/-and passed the order u/sec 143(3) r.w.s263 r.w.s144B of the Act dated 26.03.2022. 5. Aggrieved by the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the A.O but sustained the denial