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.

M/S. Qa Infotech (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2203/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 115JSection 14A

…to the book profits is not sustainable. 4. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT V. Bhushan Steel Ltd.: ITA No.593/2015 was decided without noticing the earlier judgment, CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd. 361 ITR 505, as such, Bhushan Steel does not carry any presidential value. 3 5. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions submitted on either side. The arguments now advanced before us by the Ld. DR are similar to the arguments advanced before the Special Bench. Having considered the same the Special Bench reached a conclusion that the…

M/S. C D Equifinance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 577/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…of disallowance under section 14A while computing the book profit of the assessee company. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition made by the A.O. by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Goetze (India) Ltd. 361 ITR 505. 9. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that a similar issue relating to addition on account of expenditure disallowed under section 14A while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act has been decided by the Special Bench of this Tribunal at Delhi in…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Larsen & Toubro Finance Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4459/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…ITA Nos.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-2008 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…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3982/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…ITA Nos.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-2008 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…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3981/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…ITA Nos.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-2008 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…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3980/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…ITA Nos.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-2008 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…

Indus Best Hospitality & Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3125/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Indus Best Hospitality & Vs. Pr Cit 6 R.No.501, 5Th Floor Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Formerly Known As Silvassa Aayakar Bhavan Realtors Pvt. Ltd., M.K.Road 105, Runwal & Omkar Esquare, Mumbai – 400 020 Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Singal Off. E.E.Highway Sion (E) Mumbai – 400 022 Pan/Gir No. Aamcs0212P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 2Section 263

…in law. The Hon'ble Tribunal further observed that the action of the Ld. CIT in directing the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry in a particular manner is contrary to the law interpreted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd [361 ITR 505]. It was further observed that if such course of action is permitted, the Ld. CIT can find fault with each and every assessment order without makings any enquiry or verification in order to establish that the assessment order is not sustainable in law. With these observations, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act inv…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Media & Communicaton Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 772/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.772/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. बनाम/ 16(1) In Centre, 49/50,Midc,12Th Road Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-1198-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1167/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- बनाम/ In Centre, 49/50,Midc,12Th Road 16(1) Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-1198-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mihir Nanavdekar,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…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. Assessment Year 2011-12 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 Su…

Indusind Media & Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 1167/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.772/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. बनाम/ 16(1) In Centre, 49/50,Midc,12Th Road Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-1198-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1167/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- बनाम/ In Centre, 49/50,Midc,12Th Road 16(1) Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-1198-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mihir Nanavdekar,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…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. Assessment Year 2011-12 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 Su…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…lhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz (I) Ltd. 2014 361 ITR 505 (Delhi) 10. It is submitted that, assessee was specifically asked by the Ld. AO to submit details inter-alia, regarding deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and in response to these queries, the assessee company did furnish all such details to the assessing officer. The investigation carried out by Ld AO M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. during the assessment procee…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…lhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz (I) Ltd. 2014 361 ITR 505 (Delhi) 10. It is submitted that, assessee was specifically asked by the Ld. AO to submit details inter-alia, regarding deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and in response to these queries, the assessee company did furnish all such details to the assessing officer. The investigation carried out by Ld AO M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. during the assessment procee…

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4063/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…lhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz (I) Ltd. 2014 361 ITR 505 (Delhi) 10. It is submitted that, assessee was specifically asked by the Ld. AO to submit details inter-alia, regarding deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and in response to these queries, the assessee company did furnish all such details to the assessing officer. The investigation carried out by Ld AO M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. during the assessment procee…

Jsw Stel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4062/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…lhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz (I) Ltd. 2014 361 ITR 505 (Delhi) 10. It is submitted that, assessee was specifically asked by the Ld. AO to submit details inter-alia, regarding deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and in response to these queries, the assessee company did furnish all such details to the assessing officer. The investigation carried out by Ld AO M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. during the assessment procee…

Rangji Realties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 708/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.708/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Shri Rangji Realties Pvt. बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Shri Vs. Rangji Investments Pvt. Ltd.) M.K.Road, 1B, 1St Floor, Mumbai - 400020 35 Court Chambers, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics5225J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: ShriC. S. Sharma
Section 115JSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…red to be added to the book profit computed u/s.115JB of the Act, since the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 32 SOT 101 has been reversed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the same case reported in 361 ITR 505. ISSUE NO.6:- 8. Issue no.6 is not pressed by the assessee, therefore nowhere required to be adjudication. ISSUE NO.7:- A.Y.2010-11 9. Issue no.7 is general in nature which nowhere required adjudication. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 1st February, 2017. (B.R.BASKARA…

Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2813/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 2813/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

…in (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) • Tara Devi Agrawal vs CIT reported in (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) • Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ACIT reported in (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del); • DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) • CIT versus Goetz India Ltd reported in 361 ITR 505 (Del) 15. She thus, submitted that it is necessary that the assessing officer examines the factual matrix in the light of the legal provisions. Page 12 of 16 16. We have perused the records placed before us in the light of the submissions advanced by both the sides and the judicial proceedings relied upon by them. 17. Ground no. 1 that arises…

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Tml Drivelines Ltd ( Formerly Known As H.V. Transmissions Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 3362/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh -DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…is about disallowance u/s. 14A under MAT computation. During the course of hearing before us, the AR fairly conceded that the issue stand decided against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court,delivered in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd.(361 ITR 505), that in the earlier years the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal.The Departmental Representative(DR) supported the order of the FAA. 3362,3363&3436/M/13-TML Drivelines 6.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that while deciding the appeal for the earlier year the appellate aut…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Tribunal in the case of NIIT Vs CIT reported at (2015) 60 taxmann.com 313 (Delhi), judgement of the High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs Smt Laxmi Narayana reported at 157 ITR 816, judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Goetz (India) Ltd. 361 ITR 505 and submitted that it was a case of no enquiry and due to these errors on the part of the Assessing Officer prejudice was caused to the Revenue and the CIT was fully justified in directing the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. He also relied on the following judgements in support of his contention that the AO has not applied his mind to the fa…

Jindal Steel Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Tribunal in the case of NIIT Vs CIT reported at (2015) 60 taxmann.com 313 (Delhi), judgement of the High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs Smt Laxmi Narayana reported at 157 ITR 816, judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Goetz (India) Ltd. 361 ITR 505 and submitted that it was a case of no enquiry and due to these errors on the part of the Assessing Officer prejudice was caused to the Revenue and the CIT was fully justified in directing the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. He also relied on the following judgements in support of his contention that the AO has not applied his mind to the fa…

A.V. Industries, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 3469/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. A.V. Industries, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 201, Bhagtani Krishna, Tax -24(3), “A” Wing, Mumbai Vs. Dattaray Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaffa 1100L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…. CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 66 (SC) (viii) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2002) 124 taxman 615 (Guj.-HC) (ix) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi – HC) (x) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi – HC) (xi) CIT vs. Goetz (I) Ltd. 2014 361 ITR 505 (Delhi – HC) 11 M/s. A.V. Industries 18. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the the relevant case laws submitted by the Ld. Representatives of the parties. Firstly, we discuss the case laws relied upon by the Ld. D.R. There is no doubt that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “Infosys Technology” (supra)…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 371 / 2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015
Section 260ASection 32

…‖ 2015:DHC:1459-DB ITA Nos. 371/2012 & 372/2012 Page 12 of 24 13. As noticed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central- II) Vs. Goetze (India) Limited [2014] 361 ITR 505 (Del), Sub-section (1) to Section 115JB of the Act begins with a non obstante expression, which gives an overriding effect to the said section. Sub-section (2) states that every assessee being a company shall prepare a Profit and Loss account for the previous year in accordance with the provisions of Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Co…