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].

set-off of losses from such income assessed to tax u/s 68 to 69D of the Act. The dispute herein has arisen between the rival parties ‘as to whether the effective date of operation of enhanced 60% rate of taxation is with respect (a) to date transactional income offered/assessed to tax u/s 68 to 69D of the Act or with

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’].

loss of ₹7,28,68,020/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny vide notice dt. 06/07/2017 issued u/s 143(2) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 8 Srithik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 048/PAN/2025 AY : 2016-17 In the event of failure to attend proceeding & non- compliance from the assessee

EMGEE HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,GOA vs. JCIT(A), KANPUR

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. 273/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Emgee Housing Private Vs Acit-Circle 1(1), Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, . 608, City Center Patto Plaza, Edc Complex, Panjim-403001, Patto Plaza, Goa. Panjim-403001, Goa. Pan .No.Aabce6688E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By None(Letter 10-03-25) Revenue By Ms.Nazeera Mohamad.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Addl/ Jcit(A) Kanpur Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Found That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Sufficient Cause Was Explained & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised

loss of Rs.1,91,68,762/- Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act are issued calling for details in respect of claims and the information supporting the return of income filed. The assesse has filed the details and the Assessing Officer (A.O) has dealt on the submissions/details

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)

Loss Account which remains unpaid as on 31.03.2011. The details of such provisions are set out by the Assessing Officer vide para 6 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer inferred that since the expenses were not incurred till the date, the provisions for such expense cannot be allowed as deduction. Accordingly, disallowed the provisions of expenses of Rs.2

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)

Loss Account which remains unpaid as on 31.03.2011. The details of such provisions are set out by the Assessing Officer vide para 6 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer inferred that since the expenses were not incurred till the date, the provisions for such expense cannot be allowed as deduction. Accordingly, disallowed the provisions of expenses of Rs.2

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/-, examined original assessment records only and no fresh material had come in his possession after completion of original assessment u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act. 6 ITA.No.336/PAN./2018 M/s. Kamat Real Estate Developers, Panaji, Goa. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action

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-

set-aside the assessment order and remitted the case for de-nova assessment after verification of claim for c/f of losses. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 34 M/s Zuari Management Services Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA No. 085/PAN/2020 AY: 2009-10 2.3 Pursuant to Ld. CIT’s revisionary directions contained in order farmed

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)

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.36,68,164/-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

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)

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.36,68,164/-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

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)

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.36,68,164/-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

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