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 14ASection 263Section 115JBSection 37(1)Section 8DSection 142(1)Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

minimum alternate taxinadequate enquirysection 10(33)section 115jaresulting companysection 115jb(2)scheme of arrangementlack of enquirymalabar industrialgoing concernamalgamationrevision u/s 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd.

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1208/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

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 October, 2015. 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…

Ankush Garg, Rohtak vs. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2287/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 263

…er. There was total absence of enquiry or verification. These cases have to be distinguished from other cases (i) where there is enquiry but the findings are incorrect/erroneous; and (ii) where there is failure to make proper or full verification or enquiry." 361 ITR 505 (Delhi) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II) vs. GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED HIGH COURT OF DELHI Reliance is also placed on the following recent judgements of ITAT, Delhi: • NUT v CIT (Central) [2015] 60 taxmann.com 313 (Delhi) ITA No. 2287 & 2288/Del/2015 9 28.2.... An inquiry which is just a farce or mere pretence of inquiry cannot be said to b…

Smt. Parulben Rajubhai Trivedi, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1308/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1308/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…st demonstrate that the order is both erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by such lapse on the part of the AO. This is the position of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT .v. Goetze (India) Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 505 (Del). In this backdrop, a question would arise whether, firstly, the action of the AO is unsustainable in law or not, owing to such inadequacy and secondly, whether the mandate under s.68 of the Act for extent of inquiry by way of cross verification is absolute or left to the discretion to be reasonably exercised by the AO. When seen in the ligh…

Rpw Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3836/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rpw Projects Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Essel Rpw Income Tax Circle-8, Room Vs. Projects Private Limited 135, No. 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Continental Building Dr. Annie Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400020. 400018. Pan No. Aaecm1665J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate & : Mr. Rahul Hakani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 RPW Projects Private Limited Principal Commissioner of (earlier known as Essel RPW Income Tax Circle-8, Room Vs. Projects Private Limited 135, No. 611, 6th Floor, Aayakar Continental Building Dr. Annie Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400020. 400018. PAN No. AAECM1665J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate & : Mr. Rahul Hakani, AR Revenue by : Mr. A.K. Srivastava, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 26/12/20…

M/S United Breweries Ltd vs. C.I.T

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 782/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B. R Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R, CAFor Respondent: Smt Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194C(2)Section 244ASection 263Section 40

…ITA.782/Bang/2013 & 594/Bang/2014 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'B', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. B. R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.782/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) AND I.T.A No.594/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s. United Breweries Ltd, UB Tower, UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Appellant PAN : AABCT9826D v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 12(4), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Anitha R, CA Revenue by : Smt Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR Heard on : 28.1.2019 Pronounced on : 22…

Arun Kumar Garg HUF, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 13, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3391/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Arun Kumar Garg Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, G-20/24, Sector-7, Delhi-13, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Assessee By: Smt. Aparna Karan, C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.01.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Aparna Karan, C.I.T. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gupta, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ted by the Ld. AR that the 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 the case of CIT vs. Goetze India Ltd. reported in 361 ITR 505 (Del). It was also 4 Assessment year 2014-15 submitted that the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act was prospective in nature and, therefore, would not apply in assessment year 2014-15. 4.0 In response, the Ld. CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT and submitted that since the Assessing Officer had not made…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ausom Enterprise Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1520/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)

…(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 ITA No.1519/Ahd/2016 and 2 Others DCIT Vs. Ausom Enterprise Ltd. 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 b…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ausom Enterprise Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1519/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)

…(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 ITA No.1519/Ahd/2016 and 2 Others DCIT Vs. Ausom Enterprise Ltd. 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 b…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Harsha Engineers Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1853/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1853/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit,Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Harsha Engineers Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Sarkhej Bhavla Road Changodar, Ahmedabad 382 213 Pan : Aaaach 4828 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Tushar H. Hemani, Ar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar H. Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)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 made b…

Sheba Properties Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 5289/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5289/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sheba Properties Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya Tax-2(3)(2) 18, Homi Mody Street 5Thfloor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-0591-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Rajan R. Vora, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun kumar, Ld. DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…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…

Asst CIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ask Investment Managers P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 534/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ए’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2012-13 ACIT M/s Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5th Floor, 1st Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. AB Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. AAFCA2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से…

Durgesh Autofin P.Ltd, Bijnor vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 41(1)Section 68

…Ltd. " Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del.) " Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) " Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) " ITO Vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.) " CIT Vs Goetze (India) Ltd. 361 ITR 505 (Del.) " NIIT Vs CIT(Central) (2015) 60 Taxmann.com 313 (Del.) " Deepak Maurya in ITA No. 4271/Del/2014 " Financial Inclusion Trust in ITA No. 3268/Del/2014, order dated 14.08.2017 of the ITAT Delhi Bench “B”, New Delhi 26. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ausom Enterprise Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 857/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)

…(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 ITA No.1519/Ahd/2016 and 2 Others DCIT Vs. Ausom Enterprise Ltd. 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 b…

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 805/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 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 ITA No.805 and 2744/Ahd/2017 P.Ltd. ACIT, 361 ITR 0531 (Bom) and held that DRP is not bound by the ratio laid down by the Speci…

Gujarat Flurochemicals Limited., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2744/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 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 ITA No.805 and 2744/Ahd/2017 P.Ltd. ACIT, 361 ITR 0531 (Bom) and held that DRP is not bound by the ratio laid down by the Speci…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Radha Madhav Investment Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed to that extent

ITA 1028/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1028/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Radha Madhav Investments Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income 11-A, Mittal Chambers Tax -3(3)(1) बनाम/ Dr. Rajni Patel Marg, Nariman Point Room No.609, 6Th Floor Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-4063-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…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 J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…35/210 Taxman 145/22 taxmann.com 309 (Delhi), 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 v. Goetze (India) Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 505/225 Taxman 133/44 taxmann.com 138 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 A…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-11 vs. Shri Braham Dev Gupta

The appeals are allowed

ITA/907/2017HC Delhi20 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 263

…3. The revision orders under Section 263 of the Act enhanced the assessee’s income, holding that the AO’s original order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue; reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income Tax v Gotzee India Limited, 361 ITR 505 (HC); Commissioner of Income Tax v Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 and Gee Yee Enterprises v Additional Commissioner of Income Tax 99 ITR 375 which held that the AO’s role also involves investigation and that an order is erroneous when such enquiries are not made. The CIT held that the assessee had shown trading loss in its of books o…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…35/210 Taxman 145/22 taxmann.com 309 (Delhi), 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 v. Goetze (India) Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 505/225 Taxman 133/44 taxmann.com 138 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 A…

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. J.M. Financial Products Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3661/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Dr. K ShivaramFor Respondent: Abhijit Patankar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…/- made by assessing officer while computing book profit u/s I I5JB of the IT. Act? 5. On the facts and circumstances and in law the Ld. C1TAJ erred in riot considering the fact that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) has held that the adjustments are to be made IT Act on account of disallowances of expenses u/s 14A of the I. T. Act and reversed the decision of the Hon 'He ]TAT Delhi.” 9 9. At the outset, it is noticed that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the revenue by the decision of Hon’ble special Bench of this Tribunal D…