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

Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1226/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 135(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 80GSection 80G(2)(a)

…(A) had rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the claim for lower disallowance should have been made only by filing a revised return. According to the ld. AR, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) was binding only on the Assessing Authority and it did not impinge on the powers of the Appellate Authorities. He further submitted that the assessee’s own funds were more than the borrowed funds and, therefore, investment in respect of shares, on which exempt income was received, can be presumed to be made out of own funds. 12. Per contra,…

M/S. Jindal Saw Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2758/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…all the industrial unit pursuant to devastations caused by earthquake in the Kutch District of Gujarat. This additional ground was sought was dismissed by the ld CIT(A) by applying the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India reported in 284 ITR 323. But on careful reading of para 4 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the said restriction of not entertaining a fresh claim made by the assessee otherwise this by way of a valid return, applies only to ld AO and it does not restrict on the powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal u/s 254 of the Act to accept the same. T…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata vs. Seven Star Steels Ltd

Appeal stands dismissed and the

ITAT/43/2025HC Calcutta05 May 2025

Bench: :

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143ASection 153ASection 245B(4)Section 260A

…l (ITAT) has erred in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee despite of assessee not claiming the loss to be carried forward in its return of income, in contravention of the 3 ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323(SC) ? D. Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in law in not appreciating that the loss can only be allowed to be carried forward if the ROI is filed within the date specified under Section 139(1). The proposition of company not existing at that point of time has a remedy in terms of filing application (for condonation of delay) under Section…

M/S. Jamshedpur Transport Co.Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2618/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2618/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Jamshedpur Transport Co. Ltd.……………………………..….……….Appellant Eastern Building, 2Nd Floor, Suit No.201, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aaccj1431D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Lovish Shelly, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 16.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/Jcit-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,56,95,240/-. However, In The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Income Of The Assessee Assessed At Rs.3,57,50,240/- Resulting In An Addition Of Rs.55,000/- To The Declared Income. While Framing The Assessment Order, No Specific Issue Was Discussed By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Addition Of Rs.55,000/- Added To The Total Income Of The Assessee. In Fact, The Assessment Order Is Silent On Disallowance Relating To Rs.55,000/- As Made By The Assessing Officer. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Stated By A Letter Dated 22.12.2019 That

Section 143(3)Section 250

…I.T.A. No.2618/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Jamshedpur Transport Co. Ltd 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the decisions of the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR relied on the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and stated that no new claim cannot be entertained by Assessing Officer without a revised return. However, the ld. AR objected to such submission made by the ld. DR stating that appellate authority can entertain such claim. 6. We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, find that during the course…

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3705/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 801B(9)

…tively 3. KGD6 Unit From 512.6 crs to Increase in deduction u/s 80-IB by Rs.469.41 crs Rs.43,24,33,714 9.2 The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the revised claim, relying solely on the Hon‘ble Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)]. Reliance Industries Ltd 52 ITA No. 3705/MUM/2024 & CO No. 153/MUM/2024 9.3 In appeal, the learned CIT(A), by order dated 31.01.2019, allowed the assessee‘s claim. The said order was subsequently upheld by the Tribunal. 9.4 Thereafter, while giving effect to the CIT(A)‘s order, the Assessing Officer recomputed the deduction under section…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Siddhi Vinayak Construction, Aurangabad

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

ITA 988/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N RathiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 80I

…the case. 5. The Ld. DR at the outset challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act through an additional ground. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to decide the matter and allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. He submitted that since the assessee never claimed the same in the return filed originally nor filed a revised return to claim the said deduction, therefore, it was beyond the power of the Ld. CIT(A) to discuss and decide t…

Sh. Aroon Kumar Sinha, Dehradun vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Dehradun

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh. Aroon Kumar Sinha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1, Army Office Enclave, Ward-1(1), Laxmipur Po, Umedpur, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aidps7458R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.04.2025 Order

Section 144Section 54Section 54F

…Rs.60.50 lakhs than that declared of Rs.60.26 lakhs, and, thereafter, rejected his claim of section 54 deduction (originally raised) and latter on sought under section 54F of the Act; for want of a revised return, in light of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), in the course of assessment framed on 28.12.2017 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. Mr. Rana vehemently argues the Revenue’s case in support of the impugned computation and disallowance that both the learned authorities have rightly rejected the assessee’s corresponding twin submissi…

C G Marketing Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 134/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 80G

…ding the disallowance of claim u/s 80G of the Act which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has rejected on the ground that the assessee had not claimed the same by filing the revised return. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) has held that the said decision was restricted to the powers of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return and did not impinge on the power of the 4 appellate tribunal u/s 254 of the Act. The relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court read as under: “2. The question raised in this appea…

Feedertech Pte Ltd, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

ITA 3588/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44BSection 90

…come. With regard to the claim of exemption under Article-8 of the DTAA between India and Singapore the CIT(A) denied the benefit stating that it is a fresh claim by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 (SC). 3. The ld. AR during the course of hearing submitted that in the return of income format for AY 2016-17 there is no provision for claiming the exemption of income under DTAA and therefore the assessee calculated the income as per the provisions of section 44B and claimed the benefit of exemption under Article-8 of DTAA between India and Si…

Feedertech Pte Ltd, Nerul, Navi Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nariman Point

ITA 4209/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44BSection 90

…come. With regard to the claim of exemption under Article-8 of the DTAA between India and Singapore the CIT(A) denied the benefit stating that it is a fresh claim by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 (SC). 3. The ld. AR during the course of hearing submitted that in the return of income format for AY 2016-17 there is no provision for claiming the exemption of income under DTAA and therefore the assessee calculated the income as per the provisions of section 44B and claimed the benefit of exemption under Article-8 of DTAA between India and Si…

Flex Foods Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle - 27, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3025/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Flex Foods Limited, Vs. Dcit, 305, Third Floor, Bhanot Central Circle-27, Corner, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf0108K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Sh. Shivam Malik, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2025 Order

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)

…ng that the lower authorities herein have refused to even admit the assessee’s section 10(1) agricultural income exemption claim qua receipts derived from mushroom growing for want of a revised return in light of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. 2 | P a g e CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). That being the clinching factual position emanating from the records, we are of the considered view that once their lordships’ detailed discussion more particularly in para 4 has made it clear that jurisdiction of the appellate authority under the provisions of the Act to admit such a new claim even without a revised return, have nowhere be…

Nagar Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…elief in respect of dividend income and depreciation on the Government Securities on the ground that the issues in question had not arisen out of the assessment order. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323, he held that the assessee could not make any fresh claim otherwise than filing the revised return. 7. The assessee challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 24.03.2021 restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the issues raised in additional grounds of appe…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur vs. Avantha Holdings Limited, Chandrapur

ITA 354/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 Pan – Aabcb6134E

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 251

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 PAN – AABCB6134E ITA no.45/Nag./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Appellant Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4, Nagpur v/s Respondent ITA no.248/Nag./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Appellant Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Nagpur Respondent Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 PAN – AABCB6134E v/s ITA no.354/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Appellant Dy. Commissi…

Avantha Holdings Limited, New Delhi vs. A.C.I.T. Cir-5, Nagpur

ITA 45/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 Pan – Aabcb6134E Appellant Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-4, Nagpur Respondent V/S

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 251

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 PAN – AABCB6134E Appellant Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4, Nagpur Respondent v/s ITA no.45/Nag./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) ITA no.248/Nag./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 PAN – AABCB6134E Appellant Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Nagpur Respondent v/s ITA no.354/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of In…

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.5, Nagpur vs. M/S Avantha Holdings Ltd., Chandrapur

ITA 248/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 Pan – Aabcb6134E Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 251

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 PAN – AABCB6134E Appellant ITA no.45/Nag./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4, Nagpur Respondent v/s ITA no.248/Nag./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Nagpur Appellant Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 PAN – AABCB6134E Respondent v/s ITA no.354/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of In…

The Tatta Niwashi Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 756/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

…ished principle that if a claim is not made in the ITR, it cannot be allowed at this stage. This view is supported by various judicial pronouncements. 4.1.3 In support of this conclusion, I rely on the following case laws. a) Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC): The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the assessing officer has no power to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. b) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom): The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that a claim which is not made in the return of income cannot be allowed by any a…

DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4537/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR
Section 2(24)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER | ITA No. | A.Y. | Appellant | Respondent | |--------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 4533/Mum/2024| 2011-12 | DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), | Aarti Industries | | | | 4th Floor, | Limited, | | | | Kautilya Bhavan, | 2nd Floor, | | | | BKC, | Udyog Kshetra, | | | | Mumbai-400051 | Off Goregaon-…

DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4535/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR
Section 2(24)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 4533/Mum/2024 2011-12 Aarti Industries Limited, DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), 2nd Floor, 4535/Mum/2024 2012-13 4th Floor, Udyog Kshetra, Kautilya Bhavan, Off Goregaon-Mulund BKC, Link Road, Mumbai-400051 Mulund West, 4534/Mum/2024 2013-14 Mumbai-400080 [PAN: AABCA2787L] 4537/Mum/2024 2014-15 Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04-04-2025 O…

DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4534/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR
Section 2(24)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 4533/Mum/2024 2011-12 Aarti Industries Limited, DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), 2nd Floor, 4535/Mum/2024 2012-13 4th Floor, Udyog Kshetra, Kautilya Bhavan, Off Goregaon-Mulund BKC, Link Road, Mumbai-400051 Mulund West, 4534/Mum/2024 2013-14 Mumbai-400080 [PAN: AABCA2787L] 4537/Mum/2024 2014-15 Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04-04-2025 O…

DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4533/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR
Section 2(24)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 4533/Mum/2024 2011-12 Aarti Industries Limited, DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), 2nd Floor, 4535/Mum/2024 2012-13 4th Floor, Udyog Kshetra, Kautilya Bhavan, Off Goregaon-Mulund BKC, Link Road, Mumbai-400051 Mulund West, 4534/Mum/2024 2013-14 Mumbai-400080 [PAN: AABCA2787L] 4537/Mum/2024 2014-15 Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04-04-2025 O…