CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd.

234 ITR 541High Court1998#4713 most cited

What is CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd. authority for?

The court allows reliance on decisions like CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd when arguing for the Tribunal's power to consider fresh claims, particularly when other High Courts have permitted such considerations in revised computations.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides · Tribunal power · fresh claim · revised computation · assessment procedure · judicial precedent

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10B(8)Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 147Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)(1)section 10b(8)section 153(a)section 153a(1)(a)section 139(5)section 10bsection 80acsection 80aweighted deductionincome escaping assessmentsection 35(2ab)section 158b

Judgments citing CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

ITA 617/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

…o compute the income in the order u/s 143(3)/263 on the basis of returned income and not on the basis of assessed income u/s 143(3) ignoring the ratio as laid down by the order of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Geo Industries and Insecticides 234 ITR 541. 8. The Ld.CIT(A)-2, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in in directing to compute the income in the order u/s 143(3)/263 on the basis of returned income and not on the basis of assessed income u/s 143(3) without appreciating the fact that the provisions of section 263(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which states that the powers of Pr. Commi…

U.P SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS U.P STATE CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.),LUCKNOW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

ITA 67/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…ompute the income in the order u/s 143(3)/263 on the basis of returned income\nand not on the basis of assessed income u/s 143(3) ignoring the ratio as laid\ndown by the order of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Geo\nIndustries and Insecticides 234 ITR 541.\n8. The Ld.CIT(A)-2, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in in directing to\ncompute the income in the order u/s 143(3)/263 on the basis of returned income\nand not on the basis of assessed income u/s 143(3) without appreciating the fact\nthat the provisions of Section 263(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which states\nthat the powers of Pr.…

JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30, NEW DELHI

ITA 4492/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…see relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5OT 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for t…

M/S JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5451/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153A

…relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5ОТ 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for…

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5257/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…see relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5OT 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for th…

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5256/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…see relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5OT 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for t…

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5255/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…see relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5OT 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for t…

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5254/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153A

…relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5ОТ 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for…

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5253/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…see relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5OT 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for t…

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5252/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…lied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) b) c) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: Taxman 55 (Am) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5OT 252 (2007) (Del) 153 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the ver…

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5251/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…see relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra Mills: 243 ITR 56, which approved the aforesaid Circular. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) b) Wipro Ltd vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211 (Bang) ITO vs. Sadha Ram & Co: 153 Taxman 55 (Am) c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 5OT 252 (2007) (Del) 21. The ld AR submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd: 306 ITR 42 has held that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate a fresh claim raised for t…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. EICHER MOTORS LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 3721/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

…t legitimate benefit and relief available to an assessee in the assessment order, even if the same were not claimed by the assessee in the return of income: Chokshi Metal Refinery vs. CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) Subhash Chandra Sarvesh Kumar v. CIT: 132 ITR 619 (All) CIT vs Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co Ltd: 160 ITR 920 (SC) CIT vs Simon Carves Ltd: 105 ITR 212 (SC) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd vs CIT and Ors: 161 ITR 159 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited vs CIT: 229 ITR 383, (SC) CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del.) Re:Decision of Suprem…

EICHER MOTORS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 7(1) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 3525/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

…t legitimate benefit and relief available to an assessee in the assessment order, even if the same were not claimed by the assessee in the return of income: Chokshi Metal Refinery vs. CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) Subhash Chandra Sarvesh Kumar v. CIT: 132 ITR 619 (All) CIT vs Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co Ltd: 160 ITR 920 (SC) CIT vs Simon Carves Ltd: 105 ITR 212 (SC) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd vs CIT and Ors: 161 ITR 159 (SC) National Thermal Power Limited vs CIT: 229 ITR 383, (SC) CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del.) Re:Decision of Suprem…

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…e passing the assessment order as per mandate contained in Article 265 of the Constitution. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following decisions: Chokshi Metal Refinery vs. CIT: 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (I) Pvt Ltd: 234 ITR 541 (Mad) Subhash Chandra Sarvesh Kumar v. CIT: 132 ITR 619 (All.) CIT v Simon Carves Ltd.: 105 ITR 212 (SC) Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors.: 161 ITR 159 (SC) CIT v Bharat General Reinsurance: 81 ITR 303 (Del) CIT vs. Hiranand: 136 Taxman 66 (Raj) CIT v. Ahmedabad Keiser-e-Hind Mills Co. Ltd.: 128 ITR 486 (Guj.) CIT v Archana R. Dhanwatay:…

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1780/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ance of the deduction for Cooling Power produced by AARP, the AO has not mentioned any reasons for this power generation activity under section 80 IA of the Act. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Geo Industries & Insecticide (I) Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 234 ITR 541 held that when an assessee makes a claim for consideration of an item for deduction during the course of assessment proceedings, it is the duty of the ITO to examine the claim on the merits of the claim. It is the duty of the ITO to determine the correct taxable income and nothing precludes the assessee from making the claim and nothing prevents…

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1778/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ance of the deduction for Cooling Power produced by AARP, the AO has not mentioned any reasons for this power generation activity under section 80 IA of the Act. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Geo Industries & Insecticide (I) Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 234 ITR 541 held that when an assessee makes a claim for consideration of an item for deduction during the course of assessment proceedings, it is the duty of the ITO to examine the claim on the merits of the claim. It is the duty of the ITO to determine the correct taxable income and nothing precludes the assessee from making the claim and nothing prevents…

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1777/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ance of the deduction for Cooling Power produced by AARP, the AO has not mentioned any reasons for this power generation activity under section 80 IA of the Act. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Geo Industries & Insecticide (I) Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 234 ITR 541 held that when an assessee makes a claim for consideration of an item for deduction during the course of assessment proceedings, it is the duty of the ITO to examine the claim on the merits of the claim. It is the duty of the ITO to determine the correct taxable income and nothing precludes the assessee from making the claim and nothing prevents…

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1637/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ance of the deduction for Cooling Power produced by AARP, the AO has not mentioned any reasons for this power generation activity under section 80 IA of the Act. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Geo Industries & Insecticide (I) Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 234 ITR 541 held that when an assessee makes a claim for consideration of an item for deduction during the course of assessment proceedings, it is the duty of the ITO to examine the claim on the merits of the claim. It is the duty of the ITO to determine the correct taxable income and nothing precludes the assessee from making the claim and nothing prevents…

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1636/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ance of the deduction for Cooling Power produced by AARP, the AO has not mentioned any reasons for this power generation activity under section 80 IA of the Act. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Geo Industries & Insecticide (I) Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 234 ITR 541 held that when an assessee makes a claim for consideration of an item for deduction during the course of assessment proceedings, it is the duty of the ITO to examine the claim on the merits of the claim. It is the duty of the ITO to determine the correct taxable income and nothing precludes the assessee from making the claim and nothing prevents…

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1635/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ance of the deduction for Cooling Power produced by AARP, the AO has not mentioned any reasons for this power generation activity under section 80 IA of the Act. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Geo Industries & Insecticide (I) Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 234 ITR 541 held that when an assessee makes a claim for consideration of an item for deduction during the course of assessment proceedings, it is the duty of the ITO to examine the claim on the merits of the claim. It is the duty of the ITO to determine the correct taxable income and nothing precludes the assessee from making the claim and nothing prevents…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2