What is CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A for expenses relating to exempt income is required while computing book profit under Section 115JB. An Assessing Officer's order is erroneous for revision under Section 263 if the view taken was not plausible, legally unsustainable, and incorrect, requiring a recorded finding.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd.?

121 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd. (361 ITR 505), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 263, Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 8D.

CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd. (361 ITR 505)

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1547/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

…cision of Hon'ble Special Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Vireet Investment (P) Ltd.. without appreciating the facts that the issue has not reached to its finality as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision in the case of Goetz India Ltd., reported in 361 ITR 505 held that while computing Book Profit disallowance us HA is required to be made. However, in its later judgment the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. (ITA No. 593 & 594/2015) has taken a contrary view? (Tax effect Rs. 10,70,10,889/- @ 18.5% of Rs.57,84,37,239/-) 13. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cas…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1451/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

…cision of Hon'ble Special Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Vireet Investment (P) Ltd.. without appreciating the facts that the issue has not reached to its finality as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision in the case of Goetz India Ltd., reported in 361 ITR 505 held that while computing Book Profit disallowance us HA is required to be made. However, in its later judgment the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. (ITA No. 593 & 594/2015) has taken a contrary view? (Tax effect Rs. 10,70,10,889/- @ 18.5% of Rs.57,84,37,239/-) 13. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cas…

Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

ITA 1518/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Manish Kumar Kanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 1Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the claim was not made in the return and is raised during the assessment proceedings. Ld. Assessing Officer relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetz India Limited 361 ITR 505 (SC). 35.1. During the course of assessment, assessee claimed that it did not make any "new claim" but just asked for the re-computation of deduction under section 10AA of the Act. In view of the same, there is no requirement to file a revised return of income. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in case of Goetz India Limited has observed tha…

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1549/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

…on'ble Special Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of vireet Investment (P) Ltd., without appreciating the facts that the issue has not reached to its finality as the Hon'ble Delhi High AY 2013-14 Court in its decision in the case of Goetz India Ltd., reported in 361 ITR 505 held that while computing Book Profit disallowance ws 14A is required to be made, though in its later judgement the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. (ITA No. 593 & 594 2015) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken a contrary view? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing provision for wage rev…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1397/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

…vireet Investment (P) Ltd., without appreciating the facts that the issue has not reached to its finality as the Hon'ble Delhi High 4 ITA Nos.1397 and 1549/MUM/2023 Bank of India AY 2013-14 Court in its decision in the case of Goetz India Ltd., reported in 361 ITR 505 held that while computing Book Profit disallowance ws 14A is required to be made, though in its later judgement the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. (ITA No. 593 & 594 2015) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken a contrary view? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing provision for wage re…

Fairbridge Capital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai - 6, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3626/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah a/w Mr. Hardik Nirmal andFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT, D/R [virtually

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he said provision. 31. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed alongwith the pending application(s), if any." 14. The ld. D/R has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. 361 ITR 505, but in our considered opinion, the said decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is misplaced inasmuch as in that case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court interalia held as under:- “In such cases the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous provided the Commissioner holds and is able to demonstrate that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was n…

Booking.Com India Support & Marketing Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3675/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…e said provision. 31. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed alongwith the pending application(s), if any.” 11. The ld. D/R has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. 361 ITR 505, but in our considered opinion, the said decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is misplaced inasmuch as in that case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court interalia held as under:- “In such cases the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous provided the Commissioner holds and is able to demonstrate that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was n…

Shri Gayatri Co Op Credit Society Niyamit Hattargi, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 163/PAN/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.163/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2021-22 ) Shri Gayatri Co-Op Credit Vs. Pr.Cit, Society Niyamit Hattargi, C.R.Building, P B Road, Dadbanhatti, Navanagar, Yamakanmardi, Hubli-580025, Belagavi-591246, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Abasas5325A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneou…

Lokopayogi Ilakhe and Karnataka Neeravari Nowakarara Pattin Sangh Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.120/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 ) Lokopayogi Ilakhe & Vs. Pr.Cit, Karnataka Neerawari C.R.Building, Nawakara Pattinsangn Niymit, Navanagar, 1,Fort, Hubli-580025, Belagavi-590016, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaal1333J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneo…

Shri Mallikarjun Credit Souharda Sahakari Limited, Benadi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 151/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.151/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 ) Shri Mallikarjun Credit Vs. Pr.Cit, Soudharda Sahakari Limited, C.R.Building, A/P Benadi, Taluka Chikodi, Navanagar, Belagavi-591215, Hubli-580025, Karnataka. Karnataka Pan .No.Aabas3055M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneou…

The Belgaum Manufacturers Co-Op Industrial Estate Ltd, Belagavi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubbali

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.154/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) The Belgaum Manufactures Vs. Pr.Cit, Co-Op Industrial Estate C.R.Building, Limited, Navanagar, 10 342/690,Udyambag, Hubli-580025, Belgaum-590008, Karnataka. Karnataka Pan .No.Aaaat7254J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Pramod Y Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20.08.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Hubli Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Revision Order Passed By The Pr.Cit Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under Bombay Co-Operative

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneo…

The Sankeshwar Souhard Credit Sahakari Limited, Sankeshwar vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.118/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 ) The Sankeshwar Souhard Vs. Pr.Cit, Credit Sahakari Ltd, C.R.Building, Cts.No.41443/B/234, Navanagar, Near Hanuman Temple, Hubli-580025, Nidasoshi Road, Karnataka Sankeshwar-591313, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaat8125C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneo…

M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Private Limited, Telangana vs. PCIT 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

…the statute. The CIT should show that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. The action of the CIT in directing the AO to conduct enquiry in a particular manner is contrary to the law interpreted by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd 361 ITR 505. If such course of action is permitted, the CIT can find fault with each and every assessment order without making any enquiry or verification in order to establish that the assessment order is not sustainable in law. Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr CIT (ITAT Delhi) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 S. 263 Revision: Explanation 2 to s.263 inserted w.e.f. 01…

Shri Basaveshwar Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mudalagi vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.78/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) Shri Basaveshwar Urban Vs. Pr.Cit, Co_Op Credit Society C.R.Building, Mudalagi, Navanagar, Belagavi-591312, Hubli-580025, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaas6800M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Saidappa Gadadi.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 14.08.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Hubli Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Revision Order Passed By The Pr.Cit Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2020-21 On 04.01.2021 Disclosing A Total Income Of

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneou…

Chaitalee Sachin Deokar, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, -It -2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2806/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- "Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneou…

Bse Limited, Fort, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 2662/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 201Section 250Section 37(1)

…ibunal (Special Bench) rendered in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [82 Taxmann.com 415]. Upon perusal of the same, we find that Special Bench, after considering two contrary decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd. [2014 361 ITR 505] & PCIT Vs. Bhushan Steel Ltd. [ITA 593/2015 dated 29/09/2015], took the view favorable to the assessee in terms of ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Limited [1973 88 ITR 192]. The decision in PCIT Vs. Bhushan Steel Ltd., in turn, placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in…

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bse Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 2440/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 201Section 250Section 37(1)

…ibunal (Special Bench) rendered in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [82 Taxmann.com 415]. Upon perusal of the same, we find that Special Bench, after considering two contrary decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd. [2014 361 ITR 505] & PCIT Vs. Bhushan Steel Ltd. [ITA 593/2015 dated 29/09/2015], took the view favorable to the assessee in terms of ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Limited [1973 88 ITR 192]. The decision in PCIT Vs. Bhushan Steel Ltd., in turn, placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 303/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…(Trib) 0626 (Mum) and held that addition required to be made in the book profit could be calculated as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The ld. DRP thereafter made reference to decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Geotze India Ltd., 361 ITR 505. According to the ld. DRP, this decision has been considered by the Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment P. Ltd. (supra) but placed reliance upon Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. ACIT, 361 ITR 0531 (Bom) and held that DRP is not bound by the ratio laid down by the Special Bench. The discussion mad…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 302/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…(Trib) 0626 (Mum) and held that addition required to be made in the book profit could be calculated as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The ld. DRP thereafter made reference to decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Geotze India Ltd., 361 ITR 505. According to the ld. DRP, this decision has been considered by the Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment P. Ltd. (supra) but placed reliance upon Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. ACIT, 361 ITR 0531 (Bom) and held that DRP is not bound by the ratio laid down by the Special Bench. The discussion mad…

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 199/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…(Trib) 0626 (Mum) and held that addition required to be made in the book profit could be calculated as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The ld. DRP thereafter made reference to decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Geotze India Ltd., 361 ITR 505. According to the ld. DRP, this decision has been considered by the Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment P. Ltd. (supra) but placed reliance upon Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. ACIT, 361 ITR 0531 (Bom) and held that DRP is not bound by the ratio laid down by the Special Bench. The discussion mad…

CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd.

What is CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd.

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), Mumbai

Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax 3(4), Mumbai

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Fairbridge Capital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai - 6, Mumbai, Maharashtra

Booking.Com India Support & Marketing Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

Shri Gayatri Co Op Credit Society Niyamit Hattargi, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi

Lokopayogi Ilakhe and Karnataka Neeravari Nowakarara Pattin Sangh Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

Shri Mallikarjun Credit Souharda Sahakari Limited, Benadi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The Belgaum Manufacturers Co-Op Industrial Estate Ltd, Belagavi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubbali

The Sankeshwar Souhard Credit Sahakari Limited, Sankeshwar vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Private Limited, Telangana vs. PCIT 2, Jaipur

Shri Basaveshwar Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mudalagi vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

Chaitalee Sachin Deokar, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, -It -2, Mumbai

Bse Limited, Fort, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bse Ltd, Mumbai

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad