Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

284 ITR 323Supreme Court of India2006#12 most cited

What is Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

1,842

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Goetze (India) Ltd v CIT · new claim by assessee · additional ground · revised return of income · section 139(5) · Assessing Officer powers · CIT(A) powers · ITAT powers · assessment proceedings · fresh claim · 284 ITR 323

Also reported as

157 Taxmann 1204 CTR 182157 Taxmann.com 1

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 115JBSection 37(1)Section 147Section 153ASection 143(1)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 139(5)book profitssection 115jrevenue expendituresection 115jbcapital expendituredisallowance under section 14asection 32section 254section 37(1)transfer pricing adjustmentliable to tax

Judgments citing Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 State Bank of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Financial Reporting & Taxation Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Dept. Mumbai 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACS8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. State Bank of India of Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai Dept. 3rd Floor, Corpor…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 State Bank of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Financial Reporting & Taxation Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Dept. Mumbai 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACS8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. State Bank of India of Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai Dept. 3rd Floor, Corpor…

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5465/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…he CIT(A) ought to have first decided the ques"on of entertainability of the assessee's higher claim of deprecia"on by a le"er and not by a revised return, before deciding the merits of the claim. In Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182: (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the assessee can make a claim for deduc"on, which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the "me allowed. In the same decision, it was made clear that the power of the Tribunal to admit an addi"onal ground under s. 254 is not affected by its decision. It was however clarified t…

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5624/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…he CIT(A) ought to have first decided the ques"on of entertainability of the assessee's higher claim of deprecia"on by a le"er and not by a revised return, before deciding the merits of the claim. In Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182: (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the assessee can make a claim for deduc"on, which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the "me allowed. In the same decision, it was made clear that the power of the Tribunal to admit an addi"onal ground under s. 254 is not affected by its decision. It was however clarified t…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VALVAYA CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 9122/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarasst. Cit-14(1)(2) Valvaya Capital Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Shop No. 14, Lovely Home Chs Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Ltd., Church Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400 029 Pan/Gir No. Aabce 8567 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Reepal Trashawala Respondent By : Shri Nayanjyoti Nath Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Department, Against Order Dated 27.10.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2015-16. 2. The Sole Issue Arising In The Present Appeal Relates To Reduction Of An Amount Of Rs.5,70,31,124/-, Being Capital Work-In-Progress, While Computing The Capital Gain U/S. 50B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short).

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TrashawalaFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath
Section 115JSection 50B

…capital gain on slump sale in terms with section 50B of the Act, the assessee had inadvertently omitted the capital work-in-progress, amounting to Rs.570,31,124/-. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Limited vs. CIT 284 ITR 323, the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) observed that the revised claim of the assessee cannot be accepted otherwise than through a revised return of income. Since, the assessee had not filed any revised return of income, the A.O. rejected assessee’s claim. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before ld. First appellate authority. 6…

APAR INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC6(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8757/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pawan Singh () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32ASection 35A

…case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT & Another 187 ITR 688 (SC) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)admitted the additional claim of the assessee for adjudication observing as under: 7.2.2.5. As per the foregoing case laws, fresh claim can be made in cases of assessment, before the appellate authority. Perhaps the basis, in the judgments of the above three case laws, of allowing the assessees to make fresh claims before the appellate autho…

ASHOK KUMAR,SIRSA vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA , HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/CHANDI/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Me Is That The Authorities Below Erred In Not Granting Credit Of Tcs As Reflected In Form 26As, Merely On The Ground That The Same Was Not Claimed In The Return Of Income. The Assessee Has Demonstrated That The Tcs Stands Duly Reflected In The Annual Tax Statement (Form 26As).

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal & Shri Sifatpreet Singh, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 254

…The assessee has demonstrated that the TCS stands duly reflected in the Annual Tax Statement (Form 26AS). 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), contended that any claim for deduction or relief which is not made in the return of income cannot be entertained otherwise than by filing a revised return and therefore, the action of the lower authorities deserves to be upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The reliance placed by the Reven…

COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 738/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35

…n of income, namely a claim for set-off of loss of Dahej unit amounting to Rs.2,04,89,278/- against the income of other units of the assessee. The Ld. AO, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), rejected the said claim holding that a fresh claim which was not made in the return of income cannot be entertained during the course of assessment proceedings. Finally, the Ld. AO completed the assessment of the assessee under section 143(3) of the Act on 20.12.2017 making an addition of Rs.1,17,93,630/- on account of disallowance under se…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. HI TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 738/CTK/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Ojha & Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…ondoning such limitation. When the Tribunal permits the assessee to file return beyond the time prescribed under the Act, it should be read by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). Basically what is being permitted by the Tribunal is to file revised computation sheet and not original return u/s 139(1), 139(4) or 139(5) of the Act. As long as there is no return filed u/s 139(1), 139(4) or 139(5) of the Act, no notice u/s 143(2) can be issued. It is admitted fact that no original return has been filed by the assessee fo…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. HI TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 737/CTK/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Ojha & Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…ondoning such limitation. When the Tribunal permits the assessee to file return beyond the time prescribed under the Act, it should be read by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). Basically what is being permitted by the Tribunal is to file revised computation sheet and not original return u/s 139(1), 139(4) or 139(5) of the Act. As long as there is no return filed u/s 139(1), 139(4) or 139(5) of the Act, no notice u/s 143(2) can be issued. It is admitted fact that no original return has been filed by the assessee fo…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. RAJDHANI SYSTEMS & ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 734/CTK/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Ojha & Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…ondoning such limitation. When the Tribunal permits the assessee to file return beyond the time prescribed under the Act, it should be read by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). Basically what is being permitted by the Tribunal is to file revised computation sheet and not original return u/s 139(1), 139(4) or 139(5) of the Act. As long as there is no return filed u/s 139(1), 139(4) or 139(5) of the Act, no notice u/s 143(2) can be issued. It is admitted fact that no original return has been filed by the assessee fo…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. RAJDHANI SYSTEMS & ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 733/CTK/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Ojha & Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…ondoning such limitation. When the Tribunal permits the assessee to file return beyond the time prescribed under the Act, it should be read by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). Basically what is being permitted by the Tribunal is to file revised computation sheet and not original return u/s 139(1), 139(4) or 139(5) of the Act. As long as there is no return filed u/s 139(1), 139(4) or 139(5) of the Act, no notice u/s 143(2) can be issued. It is admitted fact that no original return has been filed by the assessee fo…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. RAJDHANI SYSTEMS & ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 732/CTK/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.732, 733 & 734/Ctk/2025 Assessment Years 2006-07, 2005-06 & 2004-05 Acit, Circle-1(1), Rajdhani Systems & Estates Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751007. (Pan: Aabcr8271L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Ojha & Abhishek Ojha, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kr. Chakraborty, CIT- DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…ondoning such limitation. When the Tribunal permits the assessee to file return beyond the time prescribed under the Act, it should be read by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). Basically what is being permitted by the Tribunal is to file revised computation sheet and not original return u/s 139(1), 139(4) or 139(5) of the Act. As long as there is no return filed u/s 139(1), 139(4) or 139(5) of the Act, no notice u/s 143(2) can be issued. It is admitted fact that no original return has been filed by the assessee fo…

GURGAON ONE RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. ITO-WARD 1(5),GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4145/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No.4145/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Income Tax Officer, Association, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon. Sector-22, Mullahera, Vs. Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana. Pan-Aaaag5591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.R. Sahu, Ca Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against Orders Dated 13.06.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Dated 28.12.2018 & 13.11.2019 Of Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association Vs. Ito

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

…ax-free and to grant appropriate relief in favour of the assessee appellant.(Not pressed) 5. That without prejudice the grounds of appeal no. 4 raised above, the CIT(A) erred in applying the Supreme Court order in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and failed to consider that the in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CIT (supra) is applicable to AO not to the appellate authorities, thus it is prayed that the appropriate relief may kindly be provided to the assessee-appellant for functioning under the doctrine mutuality. (Not pressed) 6. That the assessee-appellant craves the right to a…

GURGAON ONE RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION ,GURGAON vs. ITO-WARD 1(5)-GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4144/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No.4145/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Income Tax Officer, Association, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon. Sector-22, Mullahera, Vs. Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana. Pan-Aaaag5591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.R. Sahu, Ca Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against Orders Dated 13.06.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Dated 28.12.2018 & 13.11.2019 Of Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association Vs. Ito

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

…ax-free and to grant appropriate relief in favour of the assessee appellant.(Not pressed) 5. That without prejudice the grounds of appeal no. 4 raised above, the CIT(A) erred in applying the Supreme Court order in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and failed to consider that the in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CIT (supra) is applicable to AO not to the appellate authorities, thus it is prayed that the appropriate relief may kindly be provided to the assessee-appellant for functioning under the doctrine mutuality. (Not pressed) 6. That the assessee-appellant craves the right to a…

THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 44C

…ITA No.- 7212/Del/2017 The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI BEFORE VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 7212/Del/2017 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. 5th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, NH-8, New Delhi 110037 PAN- AABCT-3880-D Vs The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate Revenue by Shri M.S Nethrapal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.12.2025…

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

…ough a revised computation of income during assessment proceedings, without a revised return of income as mandated under section139(5) of the Act, and in disregard of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323)?" Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 15. "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in allowing deduction under section 32AC in respect of capital expenditure incurred by the amalgamating company prior to amalgamation, ignoring the specific condition that such deduction is allowable only to the entity which acquired and installed th…

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

…ough a revised computation of income during assessment proceedings, without a revised return of income as mandated under section139(5) of the Act, and in disregard of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323)?" Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 15. "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in allowing deduction under section 32AC in respect of capital expenditure incurred by the amalgamating company prior to amalgamation, ignoring the specific condition that such deduction is allowable only to the entity which acquired and installed th…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, THANE, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE WEST vs. M M PLASTOWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, THANE

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

ITA 133/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of M M Plastoware India Private Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane Limited Gala No. 10-15, Arihant Darshan, Vs. 90 Feet Road, Bhayander West, Thane – 101101. (Pan: Aahcm2568D) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 120/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M M Plastoware India Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax, Circle-1, Thane Gala No. 10-15, Arihant Darshan, 90 Feet Road, Vs. Bhayander West, Thane – 101101. (Pan: Aahcm2568D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Lalit Munoyat, Ca Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal:

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Munoyat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 32(1)(ila)

…of depreciation over the years? 3 ITA No. 133/Mum/2025 & C.O. No. 120/Mum/2025 M M Plastoware India Pvt. Ltd. AY 2016-17 3. Whether the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Lid. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) is misplaced, considering that the said decision only bars entertaining fresh claims not made in the return, and does not apply to correction or recomputation of an existing claim during the assessment proceedings? 4. Whether the action of the Assessing Officer in refusing to entertain the correction of depreciation claim is contrary to the…

TULSIDAS VIRJI CHOTHANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailtulsidas Virji Chothani, 601, 6Th Floor, Shantrunjay Building, Neelkanth Valley, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai - 400077 ............... Appellant Pan: Aabpc0337M V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(3)(1) It-Office, Vasi Railway Station Building, ……………… Respondent Navi Mumbai - 400703

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…der section 140 and carries evidentiary value. The law prescribes procedure to correct mistakes, if any, i.e., filing a revised return within the due date u/s. 139(5). The appellant failed to do so. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) categorically held that claims for relief not made in the return cannot be entertained otherwise than by filing revised return. Therefore, the AO was justified in declining to accept corrected figures at assessment stage. 4.1.2 The AIR data reflected exports of Rs. 64,84,157. Against this, the appellant disclosed receipts of only 10,16,637 i…

Showing 1–20 of 1,842 · Page 1 of 93

...