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

Ravi Ramakrishnan, Singapore vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly the alternate plea of the assessee in Ground No.4 is allowed

ITA 5990/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…on stating that the alternate plea cannot be considered since the additional cost of acquisition can be claimed only through the return of income by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1/284 ITR 323. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for the second time against the final order passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. The assessee raised various grounds contending the impugned addition made by the AO. However during the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted argument pertaining to Ground no.4 and therefore Ground N…

Shubh Laxmi Silk Mills, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 23(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal ITA 5801/Mum/2024 stands dismissed

ITA 5802/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 154

…red. The intent of the Income tax Act is to tax the correct income in the hands of the assessee which includes the deduction that is available to the assessee as per the statute. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 had an opportunity to consider a situation wherein and identical situation. Hon’ble Supreme Court therein noted that, Assessing Authority disallowed the deduction claimed before the Ld.AO on the ground that there was no provision I.T.A. Nos.5801 and 5802/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 5 under the Act make an amendment in the return of income…

Shubh Laxmi Silk Mills, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 23(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal ITA 5801/Mum/2024 stands dismissed

ITA 5801/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 143(1)Section 154

…red. The intent of the Income tax Act is to tax the correct income in the hands of the assessee which includes the deduction that is available to the assessee as per the statute. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 had an opportunity to consider a situation wherein and identical situation. Hon’ble Supreme Court therein noted that, Assessing Authority disallowed the deduction claimed before the Ld.AO on the ground that there was no provision I.T.A. Nos.5801 and 5802/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 5 under the Act make an amendment in the return of income…

Naba Diganta Water Management Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 434/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)

…8- Calcutta HighCourt) (Pg 52 at 54 last para), wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court while affirmingthe decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in admitting the additional ground has also held thatthe decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd v CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC)does not impinge on the power of the appellate authority and only deals with the power ofthe Assessing Officer. 5. The Appellant submits that the said issue has not been examined by the Assessing Officerand prays that the said issue may be remanded to the Assessing Officer for examination ofthe claim on merits.” 7. Facts in brief are that the…

Shree Chandi Maa Mahakali Prachin Mandir Sidh Peeth Samiti, Sonipat vs. CPC, Banglore

ITA 4791/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 92C

…e that this claim was not made before the AO during the re-assessment proceedings rather has been made for the first time before the ld. CIT(A) by way of additional ground. 27. The ld. CIT(A) relying upon the judgement of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 dismissed the ground of the assessee by holding that assessee could have made this claim by filing revised return. 28. Counsel for the assessee appearing argued that the order of Goetz India Ltd. (supra) could not impinge upon the powers of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting the claim of the assessee by way of additiona…

Air India Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5996/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Smt Renu Jauhri, Am Air India Limited Asst. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1) Block – 4, Vatika One On One, Room No. 568, 5Thfloor, Sector-16, Nh-48, Industrial Estate, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 007 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, AM Air India Limited Asst. CIT, Circle 5(1)(1) Block – 4, Vatika One on One, Room No. 568, 5thFloor, Sector-16, NH-48, Industrial Estate, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 007 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No. AACCN 6194 P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Fenil Bhat Respondent by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia Date of Hearing : 01.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP: The captioned appeal by the assessee, arises out of the orde…

Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

ITA 2801/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 194ASection 201

…cts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is erred in allowing the taxation of Capital gains @20% on sale of depreciable Long Term Capital Asset of Rs. 1,79,75,000/-by ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd 284 ITR 323(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly stated that this decision does not in any way relate to the power of assessing officer to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. 63. Whereas assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erre…

Satyanarayana Viswanadha, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.223/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Satyanarayana Viswanadha V. Ito – Ward – 1 Machilipatnam D.No. 21/411, Bhaskarapuram Krishna District - 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Krishna District Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aatpv0775E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री के.नरधिम्हा चारी, न्याधयक िदस्य एिं श्री एि बालाकृष्णन, लेखा िदस्य के िमक्ष BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.223/VIZ/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Satyanarayana Viswanadha v. ITO – Ward – 1 Machilipatnam D.No. 21/411, Bhaskarapuram Krishna District - 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Krishna District Andhra Pradesh [PAN: AATPV0775E] (अपीलार्थी/ App…

Ramboll India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1468/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaramboll India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 30, Mohan Singh Palace, Circle-19(1), Connaught Place, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aahcp8488M

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanveer, CIT DR
Section 92C

…urn for Assessment Year 2018-19 had already expired. This was not appreciated by the Learned AO as well as by the Learned DRP. The authorities denied the claim by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Limited reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). We find that the last paragraph of the said Supreme Court decision clearly specifies that the restriction does not apply to appellate authorities especially the Tribunal. Hence, we direct the Ramboll India Pvt. Ltd Learned AO to grant deduction under section 35DD of the Act for 1/5th portion of amalgamation expenditure amounting to Rs 62,39…

Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 1112/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य एव श्री नरेन्द्र कुमार, न्यायिक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकरअपील सं./ITA No. 1112/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2018-19 Saket Agarwal Vs. Income Tax Officer, 27, Everest Vihar, Kings Road, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur Ward 1(3), Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.:АЕКΡΑ 9319 Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv. निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : राजस्व की ओरसे / R…

Hybrid Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3093/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K. Chandramouli, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Hybrid Financial Services Ltd., Assistant Commissioner of 104, Sterling Centre, Income Tax – 10(1)(1), Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai Vs. Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 093 (PAN : AAACM2824M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri K. Chandramouli, CA Revenue : Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assesse…

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Indus Towers Ltd (formerly Vs. DCIT, known as Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4th Floor, DLF Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, DLF QE, SO Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCV0274F ACIT, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4th Floor, DLF Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCV0274F Indus Towers Ltd (formerly Vs. DCIT, known as Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4th Floor, DLF Cybercity, New Delhi Building…

ACIT, Circle 10, New Delhi vs. Indus Tower Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Indus Towers Ltd (formerly Vs. DCIT, known as Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4th Floor, DLF Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, DLF QE, SO Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCV0274F ACIT, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4th Floor, DLF Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCV0274F Indus Towers Ltd (formerly Vs. DCIT, known as Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4th Floor, DLF Cybercity, New Delhi Building…

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1962/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Indus Towers Ltd (formerly Vs. DCIT, known as Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4th Floor, DLF Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, DLF QE, SO Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCV0274F ACIT, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4th Floor, DLF Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCV0274F Indus Towers Ltd (formerly Vs. DCIT, known as Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4th Floor, DLF Cybercity, New Delhi Building…

Avr Storage Tank Terminals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1350/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Dipran Mukherjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 250Section 32

…claims made by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO erred in dealing with only one of the several claims/issues raised by the appellant and rejected the said claim arbitrarily relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd [284 ITR 323]. The assessee had opted to be governed by the provisions of section 115BAA of the Act. Accordingly, the Company had filed the prescribed Form 10-IC on 26 December 2020 as per the requirements of section 115BAA of the Act read with Rule 21AE of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"). The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide…

Samir Networks LLP(Previously Known As Samir Stockholdings Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Samir Networks Llp The Acit (Converted From Samir Networks Vs Circle-4(1)91) Private Limited) Ahmedabad [Previously Known As Samil Stockholdings Pvt.Ltd.] 8, Abhishree Residency-2 B/H. Kantam Party Plot, Bopal Ahmedabad – 380 058 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaccs 6455 J (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

…the computation of income. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) ought to have directed the AO to give a deduction of expenses under Section 57 against interest income and that reliance placed on the decision of SC in the case of Goetze India 284 ITR 323 by the AO is misplaced.” 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 26 days on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an Affidavit dated 20/07/2024 seeking condonation of the said delay on the following grounds:- I, SAMIR NAVINCHANDRA PATEL, Partner of Samir Networks…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ambalal Sarabhi Enterprises Limited, Vadodara

ITA 2067/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…f the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assesse had not claimed deduction/s 43B of Rs. 2,31,55,260/- either in the return or through filing of revised return as held in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze [India] Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323(SC). 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal It is prayed that the order of the CIT (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3.1. The grounds are consolidated and tabulated as follows for the sake of convenience: S Common Issue…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ambalal Sarabhi Enterprises Limited, Vadodara

ITA 2066/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…f the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assesse had not claimed deduction/s 43B of Rs. 2,31,55,260/- either in the return or through filing of revised return as held in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze [India] Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323(SC). 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal It is prayed that the order of the CIT (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3.1. The grounds are consolidated and tabulated as follows for the sake of convenience: S Common Issue…

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

ITA 1783/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…f the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assesse had not claimed deduction/s 43B of Rs. 2,31,55,260/- either in the return or through filing of revised return as held in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze [India] Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323(SC). 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal It is prayed that the order of the CIT (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3.1. The grounds are consolidated and tabulated as follows for the sake of convenience: S Common Issue…

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

ITA 1782/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Dec 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…f the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assesse had not claimed deduction/s 43B of Rs. 2,31,55,260/- either in the return or through filing of revised return as held in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze [India] Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323(SC). 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal It is prayed that the order of the CIT (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3.1. The grounds are consolidated and tabulated as follows for the sake of convenience: S Common Issue…