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].

68 SOT 164 (Hyd)], ‘Mahakavi Edasseri Smaraka Vs ITO [2024, 162 taxmann.com 44 (Cochin)], ‘National Association of Interlocking Surgeons Vs ITO’ [2025, 172 Taxmann.com 9 (Pune)] etc. The Revenue could hardly place decision of the higher court to controvert the case laws relied upon by the appellant to drive home the relief for normal taxation on account of inapplicability

SHRI RAMPURUSH MANDIR SOCIETY,CUNCOLIM vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX - 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].

68 SOT 164 (Hyd)], ‘Mahakavi Edasseri Smaraka Vs ITO [2024, 162 taxmann.com 44 (Cochin)], ‘National Association of Interlocking Surgeons Vs ITO’ [2025, 172 Taxmann.com 9 (Pune)] etc. The Revenue could hardly place decision of the higher court to controvert the case laws relied upon by the appellant to drive home the relief for normal taxation on account of inapplicability

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

1)(vii) inserted by the Finance Act. 2010 got the assent of the President on 08/05/2010 and hence not applicable for the assessment year under appeal. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO towards contribution of Rs.20,00,000/- given to a school for construction of building by holding that

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

1)(vii) inserted by the Finance Act. 2010 got the assent of the President on 08/05/2010 and hence not applicable for the assessment year under appeal. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO towards contribution of Rs.20,00,000/- given to a school for construction of building by holding that

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 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

1) of the Act, the assessee filed its return on 20/09/2019 declaring NIL income after claiming a deduction ₹‎15,02,301/- u/s 80P(2)(i) of Act, however failed to substantiate sources against cash deposits made during demonetisation, consequently the Ld. AO by an order dt. 18/11/2019 framed an assessment to the best of his judgment

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. Hindustan Lever Ltd V. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 339 2. Grindwell Norton Ltd. V. Jagdish Prasad Jangid, Asst. CIT 267 ITR 673. 3. IPCA Laboratories Ltd. V. Gajanand Meena, Dy. CIT 251 ITR 416 15 ITA.No.336/PAN./2018 M/s. Kamat Real Estate Developers, Panaji, Goa. 4.4. The Learned A.R. thus, submitted that according to above judgments the reopening

SHRI BASAVESHWAR URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

1), Mumbai. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that

SHRI BASAVESHWAR URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

1), Mumbai. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that

THE ADARSH MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1-(2) , BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

1), Mumbai. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that

SAMARTH URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

1), Mumbai. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that

PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT LTD BHOJ,BHOJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIPANI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

1), Mumbai. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that

VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MARDOL, PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI, GOA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

1), Mumbai. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI, AYAKAR BHAWAN vs. VPK URBAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY , VPK BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

1), Mumbai. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that

KUMTA ADIKE MARATA SOPUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

1), Mumbai. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that

BASAV SOUHARDA CREDIT SAHAKARI NIYAMIT BAILHONGAL,BAILHONGALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTER, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

1), Mumbai. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that

VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MARDOL, PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

1), Mumbai. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that