Goetz (India) Limited v. CIT

284 ITR 383Supreme Court of India2006#4842 most cited

What is Goetz (India) Limited v. CIT authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot accept or entertain a revised claim in the absence of a revised return of income.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Goetz India Limited v CIT · 284 ITR 383 · Assessing Officer · revised return · revised claim · appellate authority · additional claim

Also reported as

156 Taxmann 1

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 254(1)Section 80ACSection 80P

Issues it is cited on

section 13indianfac

Judgments citing Goetz (India) Limited v. CIT

THE INDIAN EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4337/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: \nShri Sukhsagar Syal, A/RFor Respondent: \nMr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. D/R
Section 139Section 142Section 22Section 271Section 274

…t the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly entertained the claim of\nthe assessee and allowed the long term capital loss to be carried forward to the\nsubsequent years. The Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 322, however, the Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court in the case of “CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd."\n(supra) has held that appellate authorities can entertain a claim of the assessee which\nis not made in the return of income after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). We, fur…

RAJ COOP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI ITO 22.3.1, PIRMAL CHAMBERS

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 508/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 508/Mum/2025 (Ay 2023-24) (Physical Hearing) Raj Coop Housing Society, Ito, Ward 30(1)(5) Cts Raj Palace 11Th Road, Mumbai बनाम Khar West, Mumbai-400052 Vs Pan : Aaaar 6493 H] अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 254(1)Section 80ASection 80P

…d that the order of ld CIT(A) be quashed. 5. We are conscious of the fact that the AO has no power to accept and entertain revised claimed in absence of revised return of income, as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Limited Vs CIT (2008) 284 ITR 383-SC. In the present case the assessee failed to file revised return in time. We find that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Prithivi Brokers & Share Holders (P) Ltd. 349 ITR 336/208 Taxman 498 (Bom) and Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Mitesh Impex (2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj) held that Tribunal have jurisdiction to consider the additional clai…

MEENA CHANDRA . ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(4)/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 511/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Meena Chandra Income-Tax Officer, Ward- Ee85/7, Sector Ii, Konark 29(4), Kolkata. Vs. Cooperative, Salt Lake, West Bengal-700091. (Pan: Aespc6072J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Mathur, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT (Sr.DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154

…se property was constructed on the plot of land which has been sold by the assessee in the year under consideration, resulting into long term capital gain. Finding force from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 289 ITR 323 (SC), we accept the claim of the assessee towards deduction of cost 5 Meena Chandra, AY 2009-10 of construction along with its indexation for the purpose of computing long term capital gain on the sale of house property made during the year under consideration. For this, the value of Rs.4,57,700/- arrived at by the registered valuer towards cos…

VINODBHAI RAMBHAI PARMAR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Vinodbhai Rambhai Parmar, I.T.O., E-5, 1St Floor, Abhishek Park, Vesu, Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Attpp 7898 M Appellant Respondednt

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…essing Officer has accepted the revised computation in absence of revised return of income thereby accepted additional claim which is beyond the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Limited Vs CIT (2008) 284 ITR 383-SC. The ld. AR of the assessee in response to such fact, submits that even his additional claim can be accepted by appellate authority. The Tribunal is the second appellate authority and have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the plea raised by assessee with regard to alleged 5 Vinodbhai Rambhai Parmar Vs ITO unrecorded/unreported bank ac…

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 298/RAN/2017[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 31(1)Section 32(1)Section 32(2)

…appellate proceeding before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed additional ground and prayed for its admission. The grounds raised by the appellant were not considered by relying on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 383 (SC). On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is a reasoned order. Therefore, the grounds taken by the assessee were dismissed by ld. CIT(A). 16. We after hearing the rival submission and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee has a…

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/RAN/2017[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 31(1)Section 32(1)Section 32(2)

…appellate proceeding before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed additional ground and prayed for its admission. The grounds raised by the appellant were not considered by relying on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 383 (SC). On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is a reasoned order. Therefore, the grounds taken by the assessee were dismissed by ld. CIT(A). 16. We after hearing the rival submission and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee has a…

M/S PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NEDERLAND B.V.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, (INT. TAX), CIR.-24(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 74/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla & Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…ces provided by the assessee to the two entities do not ‘make available’ technical knowledge, skills, experience etc. In the course of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO noted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 289 ITR 323 (SC) had held that claim of deduction before the AO cannot be entertained otherwise than by filing revised return within the limitation prescribed u/s. 139(5) of the Act. Since assessee did not claim the said deduction in the original return filed by it and failed to file revised return u/s. 139(5) of the Act in support of its claim, it was not a…

UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3006/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2016-2017
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkarni
Section 10Section 115JSection 201Section 35ASection 43BSection 80Section 80G

…onfirming the decision made by the Ld.AO of not considering the claims made through revised computation of income filed in course of assessment proceedings. It is prayed that reliance placed by the AO/ CIT(A) on decision of M/s. Goetze (India) Limited vs CIT (284 ITR 383) is misplaced. Ground 2: The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the decision of the Ld. A.O. of not granting deduction for donation made which are eligible for 100% deduction u/s. 80G of the Act. Also, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of A.O. in not granting deduction for payments made to Zavri Mangalji Yamalshi Dispensary of Rs.7,00,000…

M/S PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NEDERLAND B.V.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Philips Electronics Dcit (International Nederland B.V. Taxation), Circle-2(1), Kolkata C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Bengal Intelligent Part, Vs. Building Omega, 13Th & 14Th Floor, Block – Ep & Gp, Sector- V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700091. [Pan: Aafcp 4361 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate & Shri Ketan K. Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.07.2019 Passed By Dcit (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Kolkata For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “(I) The Learned Assessing Officer [‘Ld. Ao’] & The Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ['Hon’Ble Drp'J Have Erred In Disregarding The Claim Made By The Appellant During The Course Of The Assessment Proceedings & In Thereby Holding The Amount Of Rs. 85,82,15,139/- Received By The Appellant During The Year Under Consideration From Philips India Limited [‘Pil’] & Preethi Kitchen Appliances Private Limited [‘Preethi’] Pursuant To The Global Service Unit Agreement [‘Gsu'] Is Taxable In India.

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate & Shri Ketan KFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT
Section 139(5)

…n 28.11.2015 and failed to file the revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act in support of its claim and claim of the assessee was disallowed by the ld. DCIT (International Taxation) by following the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. 289 ITR 323 (SC). However, after perusing the ld. co-ordinate bench’s order, while deciding the similar issue in the case of Howrah Mills Co. Ltd. held that while the assessee in the return of income did not make any claim in respect of carbon credit not taxable but such claim was made only in the assessment proceedings before the AO and such claim of the as…

ACIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5537/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation The Addl. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Range 1 (1), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aaach1118B (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Acit-1(1), M/S Hindustan Petroleum Room No. 579, Aayakar Bhavan, Corporation Limited, Mumbai – 20 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaach1118B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe (ARs)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT DR)
Section 143Section 37

…hrough the orders of authorities below. We have seen that claim of the assessee was not considered by the lower authorities for the regions that it was claimed without filing the revise return of income. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Goetz India Ltd versus CIT to 84 ITR 322 held that whenever the assessee makes a mistake or omitted to lodge a legitimate claim , the appellate authority be it first appellate authority or the second appellate authority, has vide power to entertain the new grounds of appeal. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court which has a binding precedent by virtue of Article 141 o…

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORAITON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4946/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation The Addl. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Range 1 (1), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aaach1118B (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Acit-1(1), M/S Hindustan Petroleum Room No. 579, Aayakar Bhavan, Corporation Limited, Mumbai – 20 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaach1118B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe (ARs)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT DR)
Section 143Section 37

…hrough the orders of authorities below. We have seen that claim of the assessee was not considered by the lower authorities for the regions that it was claimed without filing the revise return of income. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Goetz India Ltd versus CIT to 84 ITR 322 held that whenever the assessee makes a mistake or omitted to lodge a legitimate claim , the appellate authority be it first appellate authority or the second appellate authority, has vide power to entertain the new grounds of appeal. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court which has a binding precedent by virtue of Article 141 o…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE INDIAN EXPRESS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5552/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V Mohan, D.R
Section 35DSection 35D(2)

…that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly entertained the claim of the assessee and allowed the long term capital loss to be carried forward to the subsequent years. The Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 322, however, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd.” (supra) has held that appellate authorities can entertain a claim of the assessee which is not made in the return of income after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). We, further…

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result we affirm the order of ld CIT(A) id affirmed and

ITA 5378/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Pawan Singh () Hindustan Petroleum The Addl.Cit, Range-1(1), Corporation Ltd., Mumbai 17, Jamashedji Tata Road, V/S Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaach1118B Appellant Respondent

Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…hrough the orders of authorities below. We have seen that claim of the assessee was not considered by the lower authorities for the regions that it was claimed without filing the revise return of income. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Goetz India Ltd versus CIT to 84 ITR 322 held that whenever the assessee makes a mistake or omitted to lodge a legitimate claim , the appellate authority be it first appellate authority or the second appellate authority, has vide power to entertain the new grounds of appeal. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court which has a binding precedent by virtue of Article 141 o…

M/S. VALENTINE CINE VISION LIMITED,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2438/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR
Section 43B

…return filed by the assessee but was not considered by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR submitted that the facts of the case did not fall within the ratio of judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. C.I.T. reported in 289 ITR 323 (SC) as had been relied upon by the Assessing Officer but rather the assessee’s case was covered in its favour by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. Mumbai vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in (2012) 23 taxman.com 23(Bom). ITA 2419, CO 181, ITA 2438/Ahd/2015 5.0 With respect to the department’s appeal,…

THE ITO, WARD-4(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. VALENTINE CINE VISION LIMITED,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2419/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR
Section 43B

…return filed by the assessee but was not considered by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR submitted that the facts of the case did not fall within the ratio of judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. C.I.T. reported in 289 ITR 323 (SC) as had been relied upon by the Assessing Officer but rather the assessee’s case was covered in its favour by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. Mumbai vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in (2012) 23 taxman.com 23(Bom). ITA 2419, CO 181, ITA 2438/Ahd/2015 5.0 With respect to the department’s appeal,…

SMT.HALIMA ZUBAIR,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 116/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 2(14)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.116/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 Smt.Halima Zubair The Asst.Commissioner of 688/1, Kunjalu’s Place Vs. Income-tax, Circle 2(1) P.T.Usha Road Kochi. Kochi – 682 011. PAN : AACPZ2882R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Surendranatha Rao Respondent by : Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 01.04.2019 Date of Hearing : 21.03.2018 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 08.12.2015. The re…

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. DILIP RANJREKAR, BANGALORE

ITA 858/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 10(12)Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent PAN No. – AANPR4015M. CO No.28/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2012-13) Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore. . Respondent Revenue by : Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT Assessee by : S…

ARADHYA STEEL WIRES PVT LTD.,,DAVANGERE vs. DCIT, DAVANGERE

ITA 1200/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 10(12)Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent PAN No. – AANPR4015M. CO No.28/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2012-13) Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore. . Respondent Revenue by : Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT Assessee by : S…

HOWRAH MILLS LIMITED,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-XXII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1994/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shr Rakesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden , Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in considering Rs.l,0l,58,581/- in respect of carbon credits as capital receipts in spite of the fact that the assessee did not claim the same in its return or revised return as in the case of Goetz India Limited [289 ITR 323}. (3) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify and alter any grounds of appeal during the course of hearing of this case.” 14. The assessee received a sum of Rs.1,01,58,581/- on account of carbon credits which was claimed as capital receipt is not in the nature of income and therefore not chargeable to tax. The AO rejected the claim of…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HOWRAH MILLS COMPANY LIMITED, HOWRAH

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1894/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shr Rakesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden , Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in considering Rs.l,0l,58,581/- in respect of carbon credits as capital receipts in spite of the fact that the assessee did not claim the same in its return or revised return as in the case of Goetz India Limited [289 ITR 323}. (3) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify and alter any grounds of appeal during the course of hearing of this case.” 14. The assessee received a sum of Rs.1,01,58,581/- on account of carbon credits which was claimed as capital receipt is not in the nature of income and therefore not chargeable to tax. The AO rejected the claim of…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2