Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

284 ITR 323Supreme Court of India2006#13 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 367,181 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

International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage Employees Provident Fund (Icid Pf Trust), New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 4204/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

…evant documents and raise the appropriate issues/claims before the Ld. Commissioner in accordance with law, and in such an event it is a duty of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 323 would not debar the CIT(A) to consider the fresh claim, if any, so as to arrive at the correct taxable income. 12. Circular no. 14 - XZ (35) dated 11/04/1955 issued by the CBDT laid down that the Officers and Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer which in t…

International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage Employees Provident Fund (Icid Pf Trust), New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 4203/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

…evant documents and raise the appropriate issues/claims before the Ld. Commissioner in accordance with law, and in such an event it is a duty of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 323 would not debar the CIT(A) to consider the fresh claim, if any, so as to arrive at the correct taxable income. 12. Circular no. 14 - XZ (35) dated 11/04/1955 issued by the CBDT laid down that the Officers and Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer which in t…

Ajay Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 972/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

…r adjudication before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR further stated that the assessee can raise the additional claim only by way of revised returns and not by a regular appeal as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), dated 24.03.2006. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. Upon perusal of the facts, it is observed that the assessee being one of the promoters of Polycab India Limited were its shares are listed in the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) in which the offer was for fresh issuance of share and Offer fo…

DCIT-2 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Iss Facility Services India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2208/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 250

…ncome earned from the investment in mutual funds. However, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), and held that since the assessee has not claimed the exemption by filing the return of income, the fresh plea of the assessee cannot be accepted. Further, since the assessee had already offered the dividend income to tax while filing its return of income and no ITA No.2208/Mum/2025 & CO No.109/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) 18 exemption was claime…

Universal Cables Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 53/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 119(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'डी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री दुव्वुरु आरएल रेड्डी, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 53/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Universal Cables Limited A.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACU3547P Appearances: Assessee represented by : Akkal Dudhewala, FCA. Department represented by : Sailen Samadder, Sr. D.R. Date of concluding the hearing : 09-Apr-2025 Date of p…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. National Institute of Opthalmology, Pune

In the result both revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 423/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.423/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dy. Commissioner Of National Institute Of Income Tax (Exemption), Opthalmology, Pune Vs. 1187/30 Shivajinagar, Off Ghole Road, Near Phule Museum, Pune-411005 Pan-Aaatn2580Q

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Munde
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…nd circumstances of the case, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has failed to consider that the assessee had not claimed exemption uls 10(23C)(via) in its return of income for A.Y 2017-18 and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), an alternative claim cannot be entertained unless made in the original return or revised return. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the absence of Form 10B constituted a clear procedural lapse and as per judicial precedents, compliance with statutory requirements is mandatory for a…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cr Building vs. Pc Jeweller Limited, Delhi

ITA 2581/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 35D

…1 ITA Nos.2581 & 3084/Del/2024 C.O. Nos.67 & 96/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2581 & 3084/DEL/2024 Asstt. Yrs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Vs DCIT Circle-19(1), Delhi. APPELLANT P.C. Jeweller Limited, C-54, Preet Vihar, Nirman Vihar, Delhi-110092. PAN: AADCP 5443 Q RESPONDENT C.O. Nos.67 & 96/Del/2024 ITA No. 2581 & 3084/DEL/2024 Asstt. Yr: 2015-16 & 2016-17 P.C. Jeweller Limited, C-54, Preet Vihar, Nirman Vihar, Delhi-110092. PAN: AADCP 5443 Q CROSS OBJECTOR Vs DCIT Circle-19(1), Delhi…

Tejas Ghanshyambhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 628/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 251Section 254Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 438Section 54ESection 54F

…aken by the Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in its unreported decision in CIT v. Arvind Mills Ltd. [TAX APPEAL/1407/2011-ORDER DATED 05/07/2012]. The attention of the court was also invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323). It has been held by the honourable High Court that the decision of honourable Supreme Court was not a bar on the power of the first Appellate Authority to allow a legitimate claim of the assessee even if he had not filed a revised return for making that claim. It is emphasized that it is not the case wherein all investment into new property/cap…

DCIT(OSD), Cr Building vs. Max Life Insurance Company Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5213/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Meharchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT-DR
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 37Section 44Section 80Section 80G

…ITA No. 5213 & 1562/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2017-18] The Dy. C.I.T [OSD] Vs. M/s Max Life Insurance Company Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5213/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2017-18] The Dy. C.I.T [OSD] Vs. M/s Max Life Insurance Company Ltd Range - 10 Plot No. 90A, Sector 18, Udyog Vihar New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana PAN – AACCM 3201 E ITA No. 1562/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2017-18] M/s Max Life Insurance Company Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T[OSD] Plot No. 90A, Sector 18, Udyog Vihar Circle – 10(1) Gurgaon, Haryana New D…

Max Life Insurance Company Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle 10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1562/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Meharchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT-DR
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 37Section 44Section 80Section 80G

…ITA No. 5213 & 1562/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2017-18] The Dy. C.I.T [OSD] Vs. M/s Max Life Insurance Company Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5213/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2017-18] The Dy. C.I.T [OSD] Vs. M/s Max Life Insurance Company Ltd Range - 10 Plot No. 90A, Sector 18, Udyog Vihar New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana PAN – AACCM 3201 E ITA No. 1562/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2017-18] M/s Max Life Insurance Company Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T[OSD] Plot No. 90A, Sector 18, Udyog Vihar Circle – 10(1) Gurgaon, Haryana New D…

DCIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Jindal Itf Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1777/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…made before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The claim was made for the first time before the Ld. CIT (A) who wrongly allowed the claim. The ld DR heavily relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of M/s Goetze India Ltd (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The ld DR also relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd (2022) 446 ITR 1(SC) and Sriram Investment Civil Appeal no 6274 of 2013 dated 04.10.2024. 22. Per contra, the ld AR forcefully submitted that the decision of Goetze India bars only the AO for entertaining claim made by the assessee other than by way of origina…

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 504/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

…is evident that this claim of treating the incentives received under Foreign Trade Policy as capital receipts is made for the first time before us by way of additional ground. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Prithvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) has held that the appellate authority can entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee, even if such a claim was not made in return of income or by way of revised return of income. We have already admitted the additio…

ACIT, Circle-46(1), New Delhi vs. Dabur Invest Corp., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

ITA 2454/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…ing considered as a revenue receipt, hence, the refund of Rs. 478.64 crores would also be a revenue expenditure but because the assessee has not made any claim of such refund in return of income, hence, cannot allow the same following Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT[284 ITR 323]-See last lines of para 11.3 at page 112 of the assessment order. (iv) The interest paid on borrowed funds applied towards AVIVA shares were revenue in nature because investment in AVIVA is a financial transaction, hence, the interest paid borrowed funds claimed to have been capitalized amounting to Rs. 550.82 crores is to be disallowed, but nq…

ACIT, Circle-46(1), New Delhi vs. Dabur Invest Corp, Delhi

ITA 2453/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

…ITA Nos.2453, 2454, 2447 & 2448/DEL/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2453/Del/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी Appellant Dabur Invest Corp., 4th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, New Delhi. PAN No.AADFD2529D प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent ITA No. 2454/Del/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 ACIT, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. D…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

ITA 2448/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

…ITA Nos.2453, 2454, 2447 & 2448/DEL/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2453/Del/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Dabur Invest Corp., 4th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant PAN No.AADFD2529D प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent ITA No. 2454/Del/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 ACIT, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. बनाम Vs…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

ITA 2447/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…ing considered as a revenue receipt, hence, the refund of Rs. 478.64 crores would also be a revenue expenditure but because the assessee has not made any claim of such refund in return of income, hence, cannot allow the same following Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT[284 ITR 323]-See last lines of para 11.3 at page 112 of the assessment order. (iv) The interest paid on borrowed funds applied towards AVIVA shares were revenue in nature because investment in AVIVA is a financial transaction, hence, the interest paid borrowed funds claimed to have been capitalized amounting to Rs. 550.82 crores is to be disallowed, but nq…

DCIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4760/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

…is evident that this claim of treating the incentives received under Foreign Trade Policy as capital receipts is made for the first time before us by way of additional ground. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Prithvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) has held that the appellate authority can entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee, even if such a claim was not made in return of income or by way of revised return of income. We have already admitted the additio…

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4693/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

…is evident that this claim of treating the incentives received under Foreign Trade Policy as capital receipts is made for the first time before us by way of additional ground. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Prithvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) has held that the appellate authority can entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee, even if such a claim was not made in return of income or by way of revised return of income. We have already admitted the additio…

Manapuram Finance Ltd, Thrissur vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 145/COCH/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Manappuram Finance Ltd., Acit, Circle-1(1) Iv/470A(Old), Thrissur W638A(New), Vs. Manappuram House, Valapad P.O. Thrissur-680567 Pan : Aabcm6882E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 26-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…tter of the assessment order for the year under consideration and the assessee did not raise these issues during the assessment proceedings. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.),have held that the appellate authority can entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee.We find that similar findings have been rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation (P.) Ltd., 6…

China Kunlun Contracting and Engineering Corporation, Mumbai vs. DDIT (CPC), Bengaluru

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

ITA 3778/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms Smita Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash (SR. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 54

…the current year’s business loss to subsequent year, we are of considered view to accept the same in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze 6 China Kunlun Contrac"ng and Engineering Corpora"on., AY 2021-22 (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), whereby it was held that “nothing impinges on the power of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim of the assessee”. 6. Thus, we remit the matter back to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to verify the claim of the assessee for its correctness and consider the same in accordance with the provisions of law f…