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 366,470 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

Varadhan Sureshbabu, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle-7(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3696/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3696/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M.D.Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 250Section 54Section 54F

…. The CIT(A) upheld the decision of the AO and also denied the deduction under section 54F to the assessee stating that new claims cannot be accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT [(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)]. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 3. We heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. We notice that the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act has been denied by the assessee on the ground that it is a fresh claim. However from the order of the AO it is clear that the assessee in the return of income has claimed ded…

Yerragudi Venkata Siva Reddy, Anantapur vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 1294/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1294/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Yerragudi Venkata Siva Reddy, Ananthapur The Acit, Vs. Pin – 515 001. Circle-1, Pan Aampy0365L Kurnool. Andhra Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: -None- राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 2(47)(ii)Section 48

…n the building, which indisputably took place, thereby entitling the assessee to the benefit of indexed cost under Section 48. 6. Inapplicability of Goetze ruling to appellate proceedings The reliance placed by the CIT(A) on Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)] is wholly misplaced. That decision merely restricts the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to entertain new claims 5 ITA.No.1294/Hyd./2025 in the course of assessment proceedings. It does not curtail the powers of appellate authorities. As held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR…

Ramjidas Budhraja Charitable Trust (Sgm), Chhindwara vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 235/JAB/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…, the Ld. Counsel for assessee placed reliance on the aforesaid written submissions referred to foregoing paragraph no. (B.2) of this order. In particular, he pleaded that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT [(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)], on which the Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance while dismissing the assessee’s appeal, is applicable only to assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and has no application to appellate proceedings. (C.1) The Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue supported the orders passed by the Ld. Addl/JCIT Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal…

Kamleshkumar Dhansukhlal Patel, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 890/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

…that actual agricultural income was Rs.6,91,924/-, and the higher figure was a typographical error in the return. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the claim of the assessee, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), holding that the claim could not be entertained without a revised return. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. AR, before us, submitted that the addition of Rs.66,52,171/- is a result of clerical/typographical error. The Ld. AR submitted that the net agricultural income for…

Firstrand Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…uction in Assessment Year 2018-19 on the ground that there was no provision in the Act permitting such adjustment otherwise than by filing a revised return of income. Ld. Assessing Officer relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) to hold that the claim could not be entertained during assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. 15.3. Assessee submitted that while computing its total income, it had duly considered the impact of Income Computation and Disclosure Standard (ICDS) IV-Revenue Recognition in relation to loan processing fees and commission income earned on b…

Nobel Biocare India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6881/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Hinal Shah &For Respondent: Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

…return. taxable income, notwithstanding the absence of a revised return. While the AO's power may be limited by the rule in Goetze (India) While the AO's power may be limited by the rule in While the AO's power may be limited by the rule in Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the powers of the Appellate , the powers of the Appellate Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) Authorities are co-ext extensive with those of the AO and are not ensive with those of the AO and are not restricted by the absence of a revised return. restricted by the absence of a revised return. 4.4 We draw We draw We draw strength from the d…

Nobel Biocare India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6880/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Hinal Shah &For Respondent: Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

…return. taxable income, notwithstanding the absence of a revised return. While the AO's power may be limited by the rule in Goetze (India) While the AO's power may be limited by the rule in While the AO's power may be limited by the rule in Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the powers of the Appellate , the powers of the Appellate Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) Authorities are co-ext extensive with those of the AO and are not ensive with those of the AO and are not restricted by the absence of a revised return. restricted by the absence of a revised return. 4.4 We draw We draw We draw strength from the d…

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Ratna Aggarwal, Delhi

ITA 21/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer Vs. Ratna Aggarwal Room No. 1210, E-2, Krishna Nagar, Block, Civic Center, New Delhi – 110051 Minto Road, New Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aefpa6066B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patawali, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 56(2)

…income but during the assessment proceedings had changed the stand which is altogether left out of consideration but ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration this revised claim and in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and the revenue while filing this appeal has not question the discretion of Ld. First Appellate Authority in admitting the additional claim and to examine the issue in context to validity of family settlement. 8. Coming to the grounds as raised and the contention of Ld. DR the only thing to be considered if the property received by the as…

Income Tax Officer, Cumballa Hill vs. Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Dharma Sthanak, Chinchpokali

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4824/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishincome Tax Officer Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Dharma Sthanak Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 64 Dr. Ambedkar Road, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Opp. Kalchowki, Post Office, Chichpokali, Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aacts 2218 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal & Shri Ravi Ganatra Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Department Arises Out Of Order Dated 26.05.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances In Allowing Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred The Benefit Of Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Trust Registered U/S. 48 Of The Act To A U/S. 12A, Disregarding Dated 19.06.1968. The Cbdt Circular No 5-P(Lxx- 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Allowing Accumulation Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Same Being Under Section 11(1)(A) On Capital Gains, Despite The Resulting In Already Deemed As Applied Under Section 11(1A), Thereby Double Deduction". 3. "On The Facts & Circumstances To Appreciate Of The Case & In Law, He Ld. Cit(A) Failed J.K. Synthetics The Ratio Of Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Apex Court Ltd. V. Union Of India (199 Itr 43) (Sc) Wherein The Hon'Ble Has Categorically Held That No Legislation Permit Double Can Be Construed To Specifically Deduction In Respect Of The Same Expenditure Unless Provided.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 48

…l not be eligible for deduction. When this position was brought to the notice of the assessee, the assessee furnished a revised computation of income. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1/284 ITR 323 (SC), the A.O. held that the claim made by the assessee other than through a revised return of income is inadmissible. 12. The assessee contested the aforesaid decision of the A.O. before the first appellate authority. 13. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the first appellate authority observed that the submissions made by the…

Mr Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(4), Pune

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

ITA 234/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

…unal in the case of Technoforce Solutions (I) Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT vide ITA No.1381/PUN/2023 order dated 10.01.2024 for assessment year 2015-16. 9 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (supra), he submitted that the assessee can make a new claim during the appellate proceedings. 14. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balmukund Acharya vs. CIT reported in (2009) 310 ITR 310 (Bom) and the de…

Mr. Dollar Chunilal Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7189/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()**

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 54F

…d not form part of the return of income filed by the assessee. Even before the Ld.CIT(A), such a claim could not have been entertained or verified, having regard to the decision of the *Hon'ble Supreme Court* in *Goetze (India) Ltd. v.CIT* reported in *(2006) 284 ITR 323*. - **4.1.** However, *Hon'ble Supreme Court* in *Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra)*, while restricting the power of the assessing officer to entertain a fresh claim otherwise than by way of a revised return, categorically clarified that such restriction does not impinge upon the powers of the appellate authorities to consider and adjudicate a claim in…

Duckbanglow Para Spark Welfare Society, Birbhum vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Suri, Birbhum

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

ITA 2272/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2272/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Duckbanglow Para Spark Welfare Vs Ito Ward-3(1), Suri, Birbhum Society, C/O Kowsar Ali, Dhulodanga Road Duckbanglow More, Rampurhat, Birbhum, West Bengal-731224 Pan No. :Aadad 5593 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhranshu Chima, Ar : Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.08.2025, Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A), Ranchi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had By Mistake Filed Its Return Claiming The Status Of A Charitable Organisation Though The Assessee Did Not Have Registration U/S.12A Of The Act. It Was Submission That The Return Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed & The Intimation Came To Be Issued Wherein The Application Has Been Treated As Income Of The Assessee. It Was Submission That The Application Filed U/S.154 Of The Act Was Also Rejected. It Was Submission That The Against The Rejection Of Application Filed U/S.154 Of The Act The Assessee Had Filed Appeal To The Cit(A). It Was Submission That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Rejected The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Assessee Has Filed The Return Claiming

For Appellant: Shri Subhranshu Chima, AR
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.2272/KOL/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Duckbanglow Para Spark Welfare Vs ITO Ward-3(1), Suri, Birbhum Society, C/o Kowsar Ali, Dhulodanga Road Duckbanglow More, Rampurhat, Birbhum, West Bengal-731224 PAN No. :AADAD 5593 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Subhranshu Chima, AR : Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue…

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Lodha Developers Limited (Formerly Known As Macrotech Developers Limited), Mumbai

ITA 4754/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4754/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) ACIT-CC-7(3) Room No. 655, 6th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Lodha Developers Limited (Formerly Vs. known as Macrotec Developers Limited) 412, Floor-4, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawsaji Patel Road, Mumbai-GPO, Mumbai- 400 001 PAN/GIR No. AAACL1490J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date of…

Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1643/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250

…rought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation in the return filed u/s. 153C and no new claim could be made before the Assessing Officer except by filing revised return of income following the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd 284 ITR 323 (SC) and further if no claim in the return u/s. 153C was made, there was no mistake in AO not allowing the set-off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 8. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. (i) Unabsorbed depreciation and business loss aggregating to Rs.150,21,12,383/-…

M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad

In the result, both appeals of revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 291/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 32(2)

…was not admitted by the Ld.CIT(A). It was the submission that these expenses had been missed to be claimed and the AO may be directed to allow the same in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 28. The Ld.CIT DR submitted that revised returns have not been filed. It was submission that the Ld. CIT(A) was right in disallowing the claim in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. as also the provisions of Rule 46A of IT Rules. 40 M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. 29. We have considered the riva…

M/S. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 74/RAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.Κ.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 Per Bench : आदेश / Order These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017, 30.01.2019, 21.12.2023, 19.02.2024, 20.02.2024 & 30.01.2024 For The

For Appellant: Shri M.Κ.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

…ing before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee recognized its mistake and raised the claim. The Id. CIT(A) denied the assessee the claim because by applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). It was the submission that the allowability of the expenditure is not in dispute, the issue was on account of the non-claiming of the said expenditure in the return. It was the submission that in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., referred to supra, itself this Tribunal is can di…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Central Coal Fields Limited, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 47/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.172,173,174,175,176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

…ing before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee recognized its mistake and raised the claim. The ld. CIT(A) denied the assessee the claim because by applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). It was the submission that the allowability of the expenditure is not in dispute, the issue was on account of the non-claiming of the said expenditure in the return. It was the submission that in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., referred to supra, itself this Tribunal is can di…

DCIT, Circle-1Ranchi, Ranchi vs. Central Coalfield Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 204/RAN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.172,173,174,175,176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

…ing before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee recognized its mistake and raised the claim. The ld. CIT(A) denied the assessee the claim because by applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). It was the submission that the allowability of the expenditure is not in dispute, the issue was on account of the non-claiming of the said expenditure in the return. It was the submission that in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., referred to supra, itself this Tribunal is can di…

DCIT Circle-1 Ranchi, Ranchi vs. Central Coalfield Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 203/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.172,173,174,175,176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

…ing before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee recognized its mistake and raised the claim. The ld. CIT(A) denied the assessee the claim because by applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). It was the submission that the allowability of the expenditure is not in dispute, the issue was on account of the non-claiming of the said expenditure in the return. It was the submission that in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., referred to supra, itself this Tribunal is can di…

DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Central Coalfield Limited, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 128/RAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.172,173,174,175,176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

…ing before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee recognized its mistake and raised the claim. The ld. CIT(A) denied the assessee the claim because by applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). It was the submission that the allowability of the expenditure is not in dispute, the issue was on account of the non-claiming of the said expenditure in the return. It was the submission that in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., referred to supra, itself this Tribunal is can di…