Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

4 ITR 323Reported decision#20851 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2020.

Judgments citing Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

JAGADGURU NARENDRACHARYA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN),,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE ,, PUNE

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3105/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. S. SamriaFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 11Section 154

…) is under an obligation to consider and examine the claim of the assessee when it was filed before him in the form of additional ground in accordance with law, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 28 4 ITR 323/157 Taxman 1 and also in accordance with the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2007] 15 SOT 252 (Mum.). A.Ys.2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 5.1 Further, in our order dated 05.02.2020 (supra), we have already considered the fact of taxation of part of the corpus (which is not donated wi…

JAGADGURU NARENDRACHARYA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN),,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE,, PUNE

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3104/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. S. SamriaFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 11Section 154

…) is under an obligation to consider and examine the claim of the assessee when it was filed before him in the form of additional ground in accordance with law, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 28 4 ITR 323/157 Taxman 1 and also in accordance with the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2007] 15 SOT 252 (Mum.). A.Ys.2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 5.1 Further, in our order dated 05.02.2020 (supra), we have already considered the fact of taxation of part of the corpus (which is not donated wi…

JAGADGURU NARENDRACHARYA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN),,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE,, PUNE

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3103/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. S. SamriaFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 11Section 154

…) is under an obligation to consider and examine the claim of the assessee when it was filed before him in the form of additional ground in accordance with law, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 28 4 ITR 323/157 Taxman 1 and also in accordance with the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2007] 15 SOT 252 (Mum.). A.Ys.2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 5.1 Further, in our order dated 05.02.2020 (supra), we have already considered the fact of taxation of part of the corpus (which is not donated wi…

JAGADGURU NARENDRACHARYA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN),,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE ,, PUNE

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3102/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. S. SamriaFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 11Section 154

…) is under an obligation to consider and examine the claim of the assessee when it was filed before him in the form of additional ground in accordance with law, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 28 4 ITR 323/157 Taxman 1 and also in accordance with the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2007] 15 SOT 252 (Mum.). A.Ys.2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 5.1 Further, in our order dated 05.02.2020 (supra), we have already considered the fact of taxation of part of the corpus (which is not donated wi…

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (4 ITR 323) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax