MR. MALLIKARJUN APPANNA ITI,GOKAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BBE instead oftaxing the same at normal rate of tax. 3] Learned Commissioner [Appeals] did not consider the Grounds of Appeal No.4. Learned Income-Tax Officer in Computing Income ought to have taken income returned ie., Rs. 12096368 instead of Rs. 12196870 income originally assessed which Order was cancelled by the Commissioner of Income-Tax U/ S 263

THE BHANDARI CO-OP CREDIT SOIETY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), PANAJI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

THE BHANDARI CO-OP CREDIT SOIETY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), PANAJI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

RAMANAGULI GROUP SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED,ANKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED,KADATOKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NYT,INGALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

SHREE ADINATH MINORITY CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELAGAVI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), PANAJI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

THE CANDOLIM URBAN CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,CANDOLIM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), PANAJI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

THE PARSHWANATH CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELGAUM vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

THE BARDEZ BAZAR CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MAPUSA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

THE BARDEZ BAZAR CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MAPUSA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

M/S THE QUEPEM URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,QUEPEM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, MARGAO

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

THE SHIRODA PROGRESSIVE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PHONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3), PANAJI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

SAFE STARSOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,HONNAVAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, KARWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim

THE MARCELA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MARCELA, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3), PANAJI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim