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

144 of the Act and finally made an addition under section 68 of the Act(i)opening balance of Rs.10

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

144 of the Act and finally made an addition under section 68 of the Act(i)opening balance of Rs.10

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

144 of the Act and finally made an addition under section 68 of the Act(i)opening balance of Rs.10

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].

144 of the Act by National Faceless e- Asstt Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] anent to assessment year 2016-17 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 10 Navanirman Multipurpose Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO ITA Nos.116/PAN/2025 AY: 2016-17 2. Tersely stated facts of the case are that; the assessee is a multipurpose co-operative society which

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’].

144 of the Act to the best of his judgement by making three separate additions viz; (1) ₹5,76,516 addition u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of failure to deduct TDS (2) ₹42,41,967- addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit upon assessee’s failure to substantiate closing cash balance (3) further addition

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

144(C) of the Income Tax Act'1961 is without jurisdiction, misconceived and without following the principles of natural justice. 3) The Id. AO has erred in making adjustment / addition of Rs.9,73,68,545/- 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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

144(C) of the Income Tax Act'1961 is without jurisdiction, misconceived and without following the principles of natural justice. 3) The Id. AO has erred in making adjustment / addition of Rs.9,73,68,545/- 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

SADASHIV B DALAWAI,RAIBAG vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 307/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sadashiv B Dalawai At Post Shiragur Tal.: Raibag, Dist. Belgaum Pan : Bdrpd7066A . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer/Itd, Belgaum/New Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mrs Viramma Muranal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/10703226271(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 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 Assessment Dt. 21/09/2022 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21[‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. Further when claim of deduction of ₹35,24,163/- & ₹1,50,000/- made respectively u/s 80G and 80C u/c VI-A of the Act remained unsubstantiated by the assessee, the said claims were also treated as bogus and thus disallowed while framing the assessment to the best of judgement u/s 144