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

ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi vs. Spring Infradev Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 611/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 47

…In this case, assessee has himself declared LTCG on impugned transaction and therefore any act contrary to declaration made in ITR should not be entertained. 10.1 Further, it is also stated that as In Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 204CTR (SC) 182 : (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the assessee can make a claim for deduction or otherwise, which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the time allowed. Moreover, section 240(b) of IT Act, 1961 also expresses similar intent wherein it stipulates that refund due, if any, on basis of appeal, will depends only o…

ACIT Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 141/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 36(1)(v)

…te that due to expiry of timing for filing of Revised Return, the corrected computation chart was filed before Ld. A. O. Further, the CVT (A) has power to decide the same as the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Limited Vs. C.I.T. reported in 284 ITR 323 is not applicable on the Power of the Ld. C.I.T. (A). (6) The Ld. C.L.T. (A), NFAC failed to appreciate that CBDT Circular No. 14(XL) 35 dated 11.04.1955 where it hs been held that allowable claim of deduction should be allowed and Revenue should not take the benefit of the ignorance of Assessee, if claim is verifiable from the record available.…

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT, Lucknow

ITA 114/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

…te that due to expiry of timing for filing of Revised Return, the corrected computation chart was filed before Ld. A. O. Further, the CVT (A) has power to decide the same as the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Limited Vs. C.I.T. reported in 284 ITR 323 is not applicable on the Power of the Ld. C.I.T. (A). (6) The Ld. C.L.T. (A), NFAC failed to appreciate that CBDT Circular No. 14(XL) 35 dated 11.04.1955 where it hs been held that allowable claim of deduction should be allowed and Revenue should not take the benefit of the ignorance of Assessee, if claim is verifiable from the record available.…

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT, Lucknow

ITA 113/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT-
Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

…te that due to expiry of timing for filing of Revised Return, the corrected computation chart was filed before Ld. A. O. Further, the CVT (A) has power to decide the same as the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Limited Vs. C.I.T. reported in 284 ITR 323 is not applicable on the Power of the Ld. C.I.T. (A). (6) The Ld. C.L.T. (A), NFAC failed to appreciate that CBDT Circular No. 14(XL) 35 dated 11.04.1955 where it hs been held that allowable claim of deduction should be allowed and Revenue should not take the benefit of the ignorance of Assessee, if claim is verifiable from the record available.…

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT, Lucknow

ITA 112/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

…te that due to expiry of timing for filing of Revised Return, the corrected computation chart was filed before Ld. A. O. Further, the CVT (A) has power to decide the same as the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Limited Vs. C.I.T. reported in 284 ITR 323 is not applicable on the Power of the Ld. C.I.T. (A). (6) The Ld. C.L.T. (A), NFAC failed to appreciate that CBDT Circular No. 14(XL) 35 dated 11.04.1955 where it hs been held that allowable claim of deduction should be allowed and Revenue should not take the benefit of the ignorance of Assessee, if claim is verifiable from the record available.…

Vasant N. Barabde, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5372/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vasant Nagorao Barabde Vs Dcit Circle 27(3), 602, Sanskar Santi Park, Mumbai. Ghatkopar East, Income Tax Officer, Vashi Mumbai 400088 Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai 400703 Pan: Acmpb3211G Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Ca Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Appeal No: Nfac/2017- 18/10041561 Dated 23.08.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 08.03.201 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making The Addition Of Rs 2,88,85.600 By Treating The Market Value Of The Paa Agreement Registered On 21.09.2017 As Taxable Income U/S 56(2)(X) Being Value Of Property For Which No Consideration Is Paid. 2. Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making The Addition Of Rs 2,88,85.600 In The Hands Of The Assessee Instead Of Treating The Same As Exempt In The Hands Ashwini Barabde The Daughter Of The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

…arabde 7.2. Per contra, Ld. Senior DR submitted that claim of deduction u/s. 54F was never made by the assessee and therefore, cannot be allowed. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). According to him, no new claim is permissible without filing a revise return. Also, even if it is considered as a gift from the daughter to her father i.e. the assessee, there is no gift deed which has been signed to justify the said transaction and therefore, addition has been rightly made in the hands of the assessee. 8. We have heard bo…

Torrent Energy Limited (Now Merged With Torrent Power Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 160/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Torrent Energy Limited The Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) (Now Merged With Torrent Power Ltd) Ahmedabad. Samanvay, 600, Tapovan Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Pan : Aacct 8570 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR
Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 254Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…und of assessment, disallowed the claim on the ground that the same was a fresh claim made otherwise than by way of a revised return under section 139(5). Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)], the claim was rejected as procedurally inadmissible. 3 The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) - 8, Ahmedabad, who, vide order dated 12.03.2015, accepted the alternative plea of allowability of lease premium as revenue expenditure and granted relief relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Prithvi Broke…

Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 30, New Delhi

ITA 4492/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…e pending assessment and therefore stood abated. 13. In impugned order(s) dated 28.03.2014 u/s 153Ain category 1st and 2nd, the aforesaid claim not made in original/revised ROI, was rejected by AO applying the ratio of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323(SC). The AO further held that fresh claim cannot be entertained in 153A proceedings. On appeal, the CIT(A), vide consolidated order dated 11.05.2015, upheld order of the AO on grounds that claims are not admissible in the light of the decision in Goetze (supra); and on merits held that sales tax subsidy received qualified as revenue receipt and h…

M/S Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5451/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153A

…rejected by AO applying the ratio of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT Page 11 of 63 ITA No. 5251 to 5257/DEL/2015 [A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2012-13] ITA No. 5451/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2013-14]; ITA No. 4492/DEL/2017 [A.Y 2014-15] M/s Jindal Photo LtdVs.The A.C.I.T reported in 284 ITR 323(SC). The AO further held that fresh claim cannot be entertained in 153A proceedings. On appeal, the CIT(A), vide consolidated order dated 11.05.2015, upheld order of the AO on grounds that claims are not admissible in the light of the decision in Goetze (supra); and on merits held that sales tax subsidy received qualified as revenue receipt an…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5257/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…e pending assessment and therefore stood abated. 13. In impugned order(s) dated 28.03.2014 u/s 153A in category 1st and 2nd, the aforesaid claim not made in original/revised ROI, was rejected by AO applying the ratio of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323(SC). The AO further held that fresh claim cannot be entertained in 153A proceedings. On appeal, the CIT(A), vide consolidated order dated 11.05.2015, upheld order of the AO on grounds that claims are not admissible in the light of the decision in Goetze (supra); and on merits held that sales tax subsidy received qualified as revenue receipt and h…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5256/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…pending assessment and therefore stood abated. 13. In impugned order(s) dated 28.03.2014 u/s 153A in category 1st and 2nd, the aforesaid claim not made in original/revised ROI, was rejected by AO applying the ratio of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323(SC). The AO further held that fresh claim cannot be entertained in 153A proceedings. On appeal, the CIT(A), vide consolidated order dated 11.05.2015, upheld order of the AO on grounds that claims are not admissible in the light of the decision in Goetze (supra); and on merits held that sales tax subsidy received qualified as revenue receipt and h…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5255/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…pending assessment and therefore stood abated. 13. In impugned order(s) dated 28.03.2014 u/s 153A in category 1st and 2nd, the aforesaid claim not made in original/revised ROI, was rejected by AO applying the ratio of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323(SC). The AO further held that fresh claim cannot be entertained in 153A proceedings. On appeal, the CIT(A), vide consolidated order dated 11.05.2015, upheld order of the AO on grounds that claims are not admissible in the light of the decision in Goetze (supra); and on merits held that sales tax subsidy received qualified as revenue receipt and h…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5254/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153A

…rejected by AO applying the ratio of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT Page 11 of 63 ITA No. 5251 to 5257/DEL/2015 [A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2012-13] ITA No. 5451/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2013-14]; ITA No. 4492/DEL/2017 [A.Y 2014-15] M/s Jindal Photo LtdVs.The A.C.I.T reported in 284 ITR 323(SC). The AO further held that fresh claim cannot be entertained in 153A proceedings. On appeal, the CIT(A), vide consolidated order dated 11.05.2015, upheld order of the AO on grounds that claims are not admissible in the light of the decision in Goetze (supra); and on merits held that sales tax subsidy received qualified as revenue receipt an…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5253/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…pending assessment and therefore stood abated. 13. In impugned order(s) dated 28.03.2014 u/s 153A in category 1st and 2nd, the aforesaid claim not made in original/revised ROI, was rejected by AO applying the ratio of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323(SC). The AO further held that fresh claim cannot be entertained in 153A proceedings. On appeal, the CIT(A), vide consolidated order dated 11.05.2015, upheld order of the AO on grounds that claims are not admissible in the light of the decision in Goetze (supra); and on merits held that sales tax subsidy received qualified as revenue receipt and h…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5252/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…e pending assessment and therefore stood abated. 13. In impugned order(s) dated 28.03.2014 u/s 153Ain category 1st and 2nd, the aforesaid claim not made in original/revised ROI, was rejected by AO applying the ratio of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323(SC). The AO further held that fresh claim cannot be entertained in 153A proceedings. On appeal, the CIT(A), vide consolidated order dated 11.05.2015, upheld order of the AO on grounds that claims are not admissible in the light of the decision in Goetze (supra); and on merits held that sales tax subsidy received qualified as revenue receipt and h…

M/S. Jindal Photo Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5251/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(5)Section 153A

…pending assessment and therefore stood abated. 13. In impugned order(s) dated 28.03.2014 u/s 153A in category 1st and 2nd, the aforesaid claim not made in original/revised ROI, was rejected by AO applying the ratio of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323(SC). The AO further held that fresh claim cannot be entertained in 153A proceedings. On appeal, the CIT(A), vide consolidated order dated 11.05.2015, upheld order of the AO on grounds that claims are not admissible in the light of the decision in Goetze (supra); and on merits held that sales tax subsidy received qualified as revenue receipt and h…

M/S G.D. Tambi & Sons, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 177/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

…ceipt of Rs.32,21,245/- and therefore only for this reason the loss of Rs.8,14,260/- claimed under the head income from other sources cannot be disallowed. 2. The AO has referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Pvt Ltd vs CIT 284 ITR 323 for not allowing the claim of interest paid u/s 24(b) of the Act. It is submitted that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case has held that claim for a deduction not made in the return cannot be entertained by AO otherwise than by filing a revised return but at the same time it also held that the issue in this case is limited to the p…

M/S G.D. Tambi & Sons, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 176/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

…ceipt of Rs.32,21,245/- and therefore only for this reason the loss of Rs.8,14,260/- claimed under the head income from other sources cannot be disallowed. 2. The AO has referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Pvt Ltd vs CIT 284 ITR 323 for not allowing the claim of interest paid u/s 24(b) of the Act. It is submitted that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case has held that claim for a deduction not made in the return cannot be entertained by AO otherwise than by filing a revised return but at the same time it also held that the issue in this case is limited to the p…

The United Club, Koratty South vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 427/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George George K, Vice-President & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member ITA No.427/Coch/2024 :Asst.Year 2014-2015 The United Club The Income Tax Officer Mangalassery, Koratty South v. Ward 2(1) Thrissur – 680 308. Thrissur. PAN : AABAT1794N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Abraham Joseph Markos, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Date of Hearing :13.05.2025 Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice-President : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against Commissioner…

Aditya Cement, Behror vs. ITO, Behror

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

ITA 1491/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68Section 72(1)

…lowing the set 16 Aditya Cement, Alwar off of business loss on the basis of revised computation, whereas the same had not been claimed in the ITR filed by the assessee, in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323, the legal remedy available to the AO was initiating action u/s 263. Further, since A.O. passed the order u/s 143(3) after due consideration of all the facts and evidences before him, any interference in the working could have been made under appropriate proceedings under sections 263 only. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce the…