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 505High Court2014#864 most cited

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.

121

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Goetze India Ltd · CIT v Goetze (India) Ltd · Section 14A · Section 115JB · book profit computation · MAT disallowance · Section 263 · erroneous assessment · revision power · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

44 Taxmann.com 138225 Taxmann 133

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 263 Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 8D Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

minimum alternate tax inadequate enquiry section 10(33)section 115ja resulting company section 115jb(2)scheme of arrangement lack of enquiry malabar industrial going concern amalgamation revision u/s 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd.

Gujarat Industries Power Co. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the captioned appeals are :

ITA 535/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 147Section 14ASection 80I

…l in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 32 SOT 101 (Del), followed, inter alia, by the tribunal in Ovira Logistics Ltd. (in ITA Nos. 2439 & 3230/Mum(C)/2012 dated 30.08.2013), stands since reversed by the hon'ble high court in CIT vs. Goetze India Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 505 (Del); the relevant findings by the hon'ble court appearing at pgs. 529- 531 of its' judgment. We decide accordingly." 4.2 The above submission of the appellant has been considered. In this regard it is held that the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Alembic Ltd. in ITA No. 1928/2010 dated 27/03/2014 for AY 2007-08 has decided the similar i…

ACIT Circle-2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Madura Garments Lifestyle Retail Co. Ltd (Now Merged With Aditya Birla Finance Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), M/S Madura Garments Lifestyle Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Retail Co. Ltd. (Now Merged With Bhavan, M.K. Road, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.), Mumbai-400020. 18Th Floor, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aafcm 0483 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aditya Birla Finance Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle-2(1)(1), (Successor Of M/S Madura Vs. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Garments & Lifestyle Retail Bhavan, M.K. Road, Company Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 18Th Floor, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower-1, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aafcm 0483 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Jishaan Jain, Ars Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/03/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

…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 u/s 14A 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. 4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.…

ACIT Circle-2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Madura Garments Lifestyle Retail Co. Ltd (Now Merged With Aditya Birla Finance Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 14ASection 92C

…Delhi in the case of Vireet Investment (P) Ltd., without appreciating the facts that the issue has not reached to its finality in view of the contrary decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delli on the same issue, in the case of Goetz India Ltd., reported in 361 ITR 505 and in Bhushan Steel Ltd. (ITA No.593 & 594/2015) has taken a contrary view.” 3. Facts in brief:– The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in readymade apparel and accessories. During the year, the assessee had entered into the specified domestic transactions with its Associated Enterprises (A.E). A reference was made to the Transfer P…

Auto Engineers Services Centre, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1104/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Roy Chauduri, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…i) Ld. Pr.CIT had not made any inquiries on his own but had directed the Assessing Officer to conduct inquiries which was against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 9 I.T.A. No.1104/DEL/2020 the case of CIT vs. Goetze India Ltd. reported in 361 ITR 505 (Del). (vii) Moreover, merely because the Ld. Pr. CIT felt that further inquiry should have been made does not make the order of the Assessing Officer erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. (viii) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Modicare Ltd. in ITA 759/2016 has held that the exercise of jurisdiction u/s…

M/S A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd., Jagaron vs. Pr.CIT-Central, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 123/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…order is erroneous. Various courts have interpreted the provisions of section 263 as above, to which our attention was drawn by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee as under: ITA -123 & 124/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page 10 of 13 CIT vs Goetze(India) Ltd.361 ITR 505 “This distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and in the absence of the finding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, exercise of jurisdiction under the said section is not sustainable. In most cases of alleged “inadequate investigation”, it will be…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Desai (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e of Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 135 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of provision of 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Goetze (India) Ltd.,361 ITR 505 which reads as under:- ‘’Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to conclusion and himself decided 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…

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1767/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Section 115Section 11JSection 143(3)Section 90Section 90(3)

…ITA Nos: 1767 and 2048/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 1 of 37 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘B’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar, Vice President and, Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member] ITA No.: 1767/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Bank of India …………………….. Appellant Taxation Department, 8th floor, Star House, C 5 G Block, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051 [PAN: AAACB0472C] Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai ………………….Respondent ITA No.: 2048/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai …………………….. Appellant Vs. Bank of India…

Asst CIT Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dsp Adiko Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 483/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleacit – Cir -2(1)(1) V. M/S. Dsp Adiko Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 11Th Floor, Mafatlal Centre Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Nariman Point, Fort Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaaca3438M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Fevil Bhatt Department By : Shri R. Bhoopathi

For Appellant: Shri Fevil BhattFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi

Section 14A

…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 u/s 14A is required to be made." 3. Briefly stated the facts are that, Assessing Officer while completing the assessment invoking provisions of Rule 8D computed the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act at ₹.3,45,82,540/-. However, since assessee had suomoto disallowed an amount of ₹.5,79,943/- he re…

Ameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Uran vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1885/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle 2(1)(1), Village- Dhasakoshi, R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Post- Khoproli, Kopte, Aayakar Bhavan, Taluka-Uran, District – Raigad M.K. Road, Vs. 410 212 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

…ITA No.1885/Mum/2019 A.Y.2015-16 1 ITA No.2044/Mum/2019 , A.Y. 2015-16 Ameya Logistics Pvt. ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Village- Dhasakoshi, R. No. 561, 5th Floor, Post- Khoproli, Kopte, Aayakar Bhavan, Taluka-Uran, District – Raigad M.K. Road, Vs. 410 212 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN – AAECA4562C Appellant Respondent ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), M/s Ameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 561, 5th Floor, 4th Floor, Hamilton House, B.J.N. Aay…

M/S. Guru Kripa Career Institute Pvt. Ltd., Sikar vs. Pr.CIT-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 68

…of Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 135 Where in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of provision of 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Goetze (India) Ltd 361 ITR 505 which read as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to conclusion and himself decided 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 AO will be erroneous because t…

ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dsp Hmk Holdings P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 484/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

…ecision 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 u/s 14A is required to be made. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set-aside and that of the assessing officer be restored." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 28.11.2014 declaring total income to the tune at Rs.35,6…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…h Knitwears P. Ltd (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of provision of Section 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s 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 errone…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

Starx Creations Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-2010

ITA 2303/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Starx Creations Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. Cit-8, 79/87, D. Lad Path, Kolachowki, Room No. 611, 6Th Floor, Mumbai - 400033 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan:Aaecm3513F Vs. Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman/Amit Pratap Singh (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2019

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman/Amit Pratap Singh

Section 133Section 143Section 263

…nd that the AO has not conducted proper enquiry, is bad in law by following the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. 361 ITR 505. 18. In the present case, the AO has already raised the issues in question and the assessee responded the same by submitting various documents explanations and clarifications and after going through the same and after due application of mind, the AO passed the assessment order u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 Assessment Year: 2009-10 of the Act. Hence, t…

M/S.Supras Metals Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1395/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1395/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…as Metals Ltd. ITO (2018) 103 CCH 0100 (Chen) and CIT Vrs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax vrs. Sampathmal Chordia (2003) 127 taxman 525 (Mad). With regard to one of the possible view taken by the AO, Ld. AR relied upon the following cases:- i) CIT vrs. V. Goetze 361 ITR 505 (Delhi HC) ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vrs. 243 ITR 83 (SC) iii) CIT vrs. Max India 295 ITR 282 (SC) 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that even though AO has established that the whole loan transaction is not properly explained by the assessee and not established identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, but AO re…

DCIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Laqshya Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 2114/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2114/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-10(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd Laqshya House, Next To Room No.216-A, Aayakar Vs. Rameshwar Temple, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Saraswati Baug, Society Mumbai-400020. Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060. Co. No.108/M/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 2114/Mum/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Laqshya Media Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-10(2)(1) Laqshya House, Next To Room No.216-A, Aayakar Vs. Rameshwar Temple, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Saraswati Baug, Society Mumbai-400020. Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl5004C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. Senthil Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Hemen Chandaniya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia/ HemenFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumar (DR)

Section 10Section 115JSection 36(1)(iii)

…nvestment (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 ITA. No.2114/M/18 CO. No.108/M/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 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…

Allauddin Noormohamed Kadiwala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5105/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaallauddin Noormohamed Vs. Ito -31(1)(1) Kadiwala 407, Earnest House A/301, New Ekta Chsl Nariman Point Behram Baug, Jogeshwari (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 102 Pan/Gir No.Aabpk6147K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 54F

…d Pr.CIT has the right to correct the same. Thus, the view taken by the learned Pr.CIT on the issue will prevail. In support of his submission the learned D.R. relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Goetze (India) Ltd. 361 ITR 505. 11. In rejoinder the learned A.R. submits that the order of the learned Pr.CIT is contrary in itself. The Pr.CIT at one place concluded that the assessee has no tenancy right. On the other hand the Pr.CIT treated the assessee and other 43 members of the society as tenants. 12. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone…

Sri Kssv Finvest Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1591/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Kssv Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaack9655Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Smt. V. Aparna

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…on Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2006] 100 TTJ 451 (Mum.) 3. Belwether Microfinance Fund (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO, [2014] 47 Taxmann.com 260 (Hyd. Trib.) 4. Spandana Sphoorty Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, ITA No. 1653/Hyd/12, order dated 10/10/2014 5. Goetze India Ltd., [2014] 361 ITR 505 (Delhi) 10. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessee has pressed only additional grounds of appeal and accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate only additional grounds and the other grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed as not pressed. In additional grounds of appeal, assessee has raised two grounds. Fi…

Manpasand Beverages Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1209/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Us Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Processing Fruit Juices. The Assessment In This Case, Under Section 143(3), Was Completed On 28Th March 2016. Subsequently, However, The Assessment Records Came Up For Perusal By The Learned Principal

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…le Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of State of Gujarat Vs Essar Oil Limited [2012-TIOL-05-SC-CT] wherein the same principle was reiterated. He also referred to, and extensively reproduced from, judicial precedents in the cases of Goetze India Ltd [(2014) 361 ITR 505(Del)], CIT Vs Ashok Logani [(2012) 347 ITR 22 (Del)] and Rajlakshmi Mills Ltd Vs ITO [(2009) 121 ITD SB 343 (Chennai)]. It was thus concluded that the assessment order in question was passed, inter alia, “without considering the above facts which show that deduction under section 80IB is not allowable”. The assessment order was thus set aside, an…