CIT v. Goetze Ltd.

318 ITR 295High Court2009#8974 most cited

What is CIT v. Goetze Ltd. authority for?

A notice under Section 148 can be issued if the Assessing Officer believes that full facts were not disclosed, even if the original assessment was completed after considering available details.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd v. ITO · CIT v. Goetze Ltd. · Section 148 · Section 147 · reassessment · change of opinion · full disclosure · original assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 115BBESection 133ASection 142(1)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

kelvinatorpenny stocksection 10(38)short term capital gainchange of opinioncross objectionaccommodation entrylong term capital gainsection 148section 147companysection 14

Judgments citing CIT v. Goetze Ltd.

Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon vs. Anil Kumar, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the 7

ITA 4013/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshincome Tax Officer, Vs. Anil Kumar, Ward-1(1), J-10, South City-1, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampk9521G Co No. 88/Del/2024 (Ita No. 4013/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, J-10, South City-1, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampk9521G

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Vs. Anil Kumar, Ward-1(1), J-10, South City-1, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAMPK9521G CO No. 88/Del/2024 (ITA No. 4013/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, J-10, South City-1, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAMPK9521G Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date of pro…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Arun Kumar, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

…India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 275 High Court Bombay (v) Praveen P. Bharucha v. DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 High Court of Bombay (vi) Purity Teachtextile (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 459 High Court of Bombay (vii) Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd. V.ITO (2009) 318 ITR 295 High Court of Delhi (viii) CIT v. Keane India Ltd. ITA 230/2012 dated 20-04-2012 High Court Of Delhi (ix) 12. The Ld. DR relied the order of the AO. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the questionnaire was issued to the issued to furnish the…

Sns Constructions P.Ltd, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the 7

ITA 4013/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshincome Tax Officer, Vs. Anil Kumar, Ward-1(1), J-10, South City-1, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampk9521G Co No. 88/Del/2024 (Ita No. 4013/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, J-10, South City-1, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampk9521G

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Vs. Anil Kumar, Ward-1(1), J-10, South City-1, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAMPK9521G CO No. 88/Del/2024 (ITA No. 4013/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, J-10, South City-1, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAMPK9521G Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date of pro…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -22(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Sanjay Sunil Bajaj, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2381/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194CSection 40

…. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), CIT v. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC), MJ Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. DCIT (2008) 297 ITR 119 (Bom), Carlton Overseas P. Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 318 ITR 295 (Del) held that : “I have perused the details filed by the appellant. The AO during the original assessment proceedings had called for the details of the labour charges paid and the reasons for the non-deduction of TDS on the same. The appellant vide letter dated 11.08.2010 had submitted the details of the same. The AO had completed the assessme…

M/S.Samkit Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3980/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Samkit Gems Income Tax Officer V. 12A, Paradise Apartment Ward No. 19(3)(2) Opp. Matru Ashish Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Nepean Sea Road Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aakfs 8254 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan Department By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

For Appellant: Shri K.A. VaidyalinganFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Samkit Gems Income Tax Officer v. 12A, Paradise Apartment Ward No. 19(3)(2) Opp. Matru Ashish Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Nepean Sea Road Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 006 PAN: AAKFS 8254 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan Department by : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing : 06.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…vs Feather Foam Ent (P) Ltd: 296 ITR 342 (Del) • CIT vs Eicher Ltd: 294 ITR 310 (Del) • KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs ACIT: 292 ITR 49 (Del), SLP there against dismissed: CC 13507 of 2008 • CIT vs Goetze Ltd: 321 ITR 431 (Del) • Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd vs ITO: 318 ITR 295 (Del) • Jindal Photofilms Ltd vs DCIT: 234 ITR 170 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) • Shipra Srivastava vs ACIT: 319 ITR 221 (Del) • CIT vs Mittal Casting Ltd: 124 Taxman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apart…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…vs Feather Foam Ent (P) Ltd: 296 ITR 342 (Del) • CIT vs Eicher Ltd: 294 ITR 310 (Del) • KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs ACIT: 292 ITR 49 (Del), SLP there against dismissed: CC 13507 of 2008 • CIT vs Goetze Ltd: 321 ITR 431 (Del) • Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd vs ITO: 318 ITR 295 (Del) • Jindal Photofilms Ltd vs DCIT: 234 ITR 170 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) • Shipra Srivastava vs ACIT: 319 ITR 221 (Del) • CIT vs Mittal Casting Ltd: 124 Taxman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apart…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…vs Feather Foam Ent (P) Ltd: 296 ITR 342 (Del) • CIT vs Eicher Ltd: 294 ITR 310 (Del) • KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs ACIT: 292 ITR 49 (Del), SLP there against dismissed: CC 13507 of 2008 • CIT vs Goetze Ltd: 321 ITR 431 (Del) • Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd vs ITO: 318 ITR 295 (Del) • Jindal Photofilms Ltd vs DCIT: 234 ITR 170 (Del) • Northern Strips Ltd vs ITO: WP 8265 of 2008 (Del) • CIT vs Batra Bhatta & Co: 321 ITR 526 (Del) • Shipra Srivastava vs ACIT: 319 ITR 221 (Del) • CIT vs Mittal Casting Ltd: 124 Taxman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apart…

Claas India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4644/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :U/S 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Alkesh Babbar CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Saroha Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 200Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…s received by the assessee in June 2009. The assessee decided not to file the appeal in view of conflicting judgments of the Courts. The appeal is being filed now as a result of a favourable judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 18th August, 2009 reported in 318 ITR 295. It has been published in Part 3 dated 9th November, 2009. The case of the assessee is exactly similar to the abovementioned case decided by the Delhi High Court. As such, the above judgment fully applies to the assessee. It lays down that the notice issued u/s 148 is not valid as the action taken by the Assessing Officer amounted to change of op…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…having live nexus and close link with the formation of belief that the income has escaped assessment. The assessee company relied on the following decisions to support its proposition’s:- (1) 294 ITR 32 (Bom) IL&Fs Investment Managers Ltd. v. ACIT (2) (2009)318 ITR 295 (Del) Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd. v. CIT ITA 6965/Mum/2013 8 (3) 65 DTR (Guj) 385 Cardila Healthcare Ltd. v. ACIT Thus, the assessee company requested the learned CIT(A) that the notice u/s 148 of the Act is defective and should be treated as invalid. It was also submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act cannot be issued to make roving and f…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Lahoti Overseas Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company in ITA

ITA 3812/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3812/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Lahoti Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Tax , 5(2),Room No. 571, 307, Arun Chambers, V. 5 Th Floor, Tardeo Road, Tardeo, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl2578 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…Ii Khan Bahadur [1974] 97 ITR 239 (SC) - Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v. ITO and Others (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) - CIT v. Former Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC) - M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. DCIT [2008] 297 ITR 119 (Bom.) - Carlton Overseas P. Ltd. v.. ITO [2009] 318 ITR 295 (Del.) - CIT v. Chakiat Agencies Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 314 ITR 200 (Mad.) - Caetini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 275 (Bom.) - Pan Drugs Ltd. v. DCIT [2009] 316 ITR (AT) 72 (Ahm.) The assessee company submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO held that when a notice u/s 148 is issued, the A.O.…

CIT vs. Mc Cann Erickson India Pvt Ltd

ITA - 571 / 2011HC Delhi28 Mar 2011
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…and because of this reason notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued and the Assessing Officer was competent to do so in view of the judgment of this Court titled Carlton Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officers and Others (2009) 318 ITR 295(Delhi). . :5: No doubt the assessee is under an obligation to furnish the complete and make full disclosure of all the relevant facts. However, in the present case, we find that the assessee had not suppressed any material. We also find that at the time of making the original assessment order, the Assessing Officer had gone i…