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

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/CTK/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2004-05
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

…return of income filed by him. The assessee had not filed the revised return of income claiming exemption of long term capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) and was of the view that the assessee cannot make a claim which is not supported by a revised return of income. He therefore held that the AO rightly dismissed the application of the assessee u/s 154 of the Act. Aggrieved. the assessee went in appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata. The Hon'ble ITAT held that, "I have heard the rival submi…

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 208/CTK/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2003-04
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

…return of income filed by him. The assessee had not filed the revised return of income claiming exemption of long term capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) and was of the view that the assessee cannot make a claim which is not supported by a revised return of income. He therefore held that the AO rightly dismissed the application of the assessee u/s 154 of the Act. Aggrieved. the assessee went in appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata. The Hon'ble ITAT held that, "I have heard the rival submi…

Thahira Beevi, Trivandrum vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax., Trivandrum

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 745/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 251

…ich, the assessee raised her claim for the first time before the CIT(A). Learned CIT-DR submits that the same has rightly not been admitted for detailed adjudication since raised in the lower appellate proceedings. We quote Goetze (India) Ltd., vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) that there is no statutory bar in raising such a claim for the first time in sec.251 lower appellate proceedings. We accordingly deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant third substantive grounds back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh verification and adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing…

The Mig Co-Operative Housing Society (Bandra East) Group IV Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 1215/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am The Mig Co-Operative Housing Society Addl/Jcit(A)-4 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 48/1 (Bandra East) Group Iv Limited D/69/675 Mig Colony, Kalanagr 48/2, Beratennagrahara Bengur, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hubli, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 100

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

…ld. CIT(A) has held that the said claim of the assessee is disallowed for the reason that the assessee has not made claim under Chapter VIA in its return of income and had relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it was held that the ld. A.O. is not entitled to accept the claim for deduction which was not claimed at the time of filing of the return otherwise than by filing revised return of income. The ld. CIT(A) has also denied the claim of the assessee on the merits stating that the interest received from Co-operative Banks are not elig…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tiruppur vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing P Ltd, Tiruppur, Tamilnadu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

…hny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24, 706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23 under capital receipts, rejected the additional ground raised by the assessee. 65. Before us, the ld. AR submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), that the appellate authority has power to direct the Assessing Officer to consider even if any claim was not made in the original return of income. The ld. DR did not dispute the same. Thus, taking support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), we deem it proper to remit the matter back to…

Geena Garments, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

…hny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24, 706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23 under capital receipts, rejected the additional ground raised by the assessee. 65. Before us, the ld. AR submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), that the appellate authority has power to direct the Assessing Officer to consider even if any claim was not made in the original return of income. The ld. DR did not dispute the same. Thus, taking support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), we deem it proper to remit the matter back to…

ACIT, Circle-1, Tirupur vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., Tirupur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3326/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

…hny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24, 706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23 under capital receipts, rejected the additional ground raised by the assessee. 65. Before us, the ld. AR submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), that the appellate authority has power to direct the Assessing Officer to consider even if any claim was not made in the original return of income. The ld. DR did not dispute the same. Thus, taking support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), we deem it proper to remit the matter back to…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1103/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…he return of income u/s 153C of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. AR, the assessee is otherwise prevented from making any new claim in the course of assessment before the AO other than by way of revised return of income [Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 323)]. This shows that a vested right of the assessee was taken away by the inaction/omission on the part of AO, by not issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act, and hence it cannot be said to be a mere procedural irregularity and we find the same to be an illegality/incurable defect. 28. Similarly, we note that, the issuance of notice u/s 153C of the…

Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and

ITA 1044/CHNY/2023[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Dwarakesh, Ca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Chennai (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)') Dated 26.07.2023 Passed For Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2019-20.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…n the return of income u/s 153C of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. AR, the assessee is otherwise prevented from making any new claim in the course of assessment before the AO other than by way of revised return of income [Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 323)]. This shows that a vested right of the assessee was taken away by the inaction/omission on the part of AO, by not issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act, and hence it cannot be said to be a mere procedural irregularity and we find the same to be an illegality/incurable defect. 28. Similarly, we note that, the issuance of notice u/s 153C of the Act…

Bijay Kumar Lodha, Rairangpur vs. ITO Ward No 1, Baripada, Delhi

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

ITA 291/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Lodha, Ward Bijay Kumar Lodha, Ward Vs. Ito, Ward No.1, Baripada. Ito, Ward No.1, Baripada. No.15, No.15, Link Link Road, Road, Rairangpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aavpl 2881 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission) : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/9 9/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/9/ /2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: None (written submission)For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 271ASection 69A

…it clear that all the issues are left open and the assessee is at liberty to raise any fresh claim as is available to the assessee. We also make it clearly that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited Vs CIT (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Assessing Officer shall consider the fresh claim if any raised by the assessee, even if such claim has not been claimed or made in the return of income. Further, we may mention here that the assessee shall make such claim in the form of a letter at least specifying the claim." (Annexure-5) The facts of t…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…JB of the Act. Since the assessee has not made the claim by filing the revised return of income, the Assessing Officer did not entertain the claim of the assessee by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v/s CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). The assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 10. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer for the reason that (i) the downward adjustment on account of sales tax subsidy is not specified under item (i) to (viii) of the Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of th…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…JB of the Act. Since the assessee has not made the claim by filing the revised return of income, the Assessing Officer did not entertain the claim of the assessee by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v/s CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). The assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 10. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer for the reason that (i) the downward adjustment on account of sales tax subsidy is not specified under item (i) to (viii) of the Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of th…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 819/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…Chny/24 20. According to the Assessing Officer that no claim of credit of VCF was in the return of income and was made through letter dated 14.12.2018 which was rejected in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. 284 ITR 323. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow TDS credit to the assessee after verification of the fact that the TDS credit claimed by the assessee is in respect of income declared and payment of taxes by VCF in the capacity of representative assessee of the assessee. The relevant portion in para 4.2.3 is reproduced below: 4.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 818/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…Chny/24 20. According to the Assessing Officer that no claim of credit of VCF was in the return of income and was made through letter dated 14.12.2018 which was rejected in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. 284 ITR 323. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow TDS credit to the assessee after verification of the fact that the TDS credit claimed by the assessee is in respect of income declared and payment of taxes by VCF in the capacity of representative assessee of the assessee. The relevant portion in para 4.2.3 is reproduced below: 4.…

M/S. Bandhan Bank Ltd. (Erstwhile Ghosh Finance Ltd), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 465/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Paul, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(vi)Section 192Section 250Section 37

…ct. 5. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated March 15, 2023 has merely placed reliance 3 M/s Bandhan Bank Limited: AY: 2016-17 on the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax, [2006 284 ITR 323 (SC)]and held that for making additional claims a revised return was necessary. In absence of the same, the claim of the appellant was disallowed. Based on such finding, the appellate authority did not deem necessary to enter into the merits of the claim. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before th…

Rajan Arputharaj Vincent Naveen, Chennai vs. Addl/JCIT A-3, Chennai

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

ITA 1198/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1198/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 Rajan Arputharaj Vincent Naveen, Vs. The Acit/Dy. Commissioner Of No. 30, Aadijan Street, Income Tax, Mandaveli 600 028, Chennai. Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai. [Pan: Ahcpn5701A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Subramaniam, C.A. & Ms. Sailas, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) /Addl/Jcit (A)-3, Bengaluru For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of Six Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Subramaniam, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एसएस िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1198/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 Rajan Arputharaj Vincent Naveen, Vs. The ACIT/Dy. Commissioner of No. 30, Aadijan Street, Income Tax, Mandaveli 600 028, Chennai. Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai. [PAN: AHCPN5701A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri K. Subramaniam, C.A. & Ms. Sailas, Advocat…

Akshay Academy, Indore, M.P vs. The Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniakshay Academy Ito, Nfac 32 Kaimaidan Road, Delhi Khasgi Gagicha Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadta8987B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

Section 10Section 11Section 12A

…he Act on the ground that the assesse has not filed revised return of income for making a new claim which is not raised in the original return of income by placing the reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Limited vs. CIT 284 ITR 323. The AO further observed that the assesse even not filed the audit report in form 10B within stipulated time. Aggrived by the order of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before the Tribunal Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that in the return of income the assesse has wrongly claimed exemption u/s 10(2…

Rani Adaikalaraj Educational and Charitable Trust, Trichy vs. ITO, Exemptions, Trichy

In the result the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 575/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 575/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Rani Adaikalaraj Educational V. Exemption Ward & Charitable Trust, Income Tax Office, Represented By Managing 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trustee – A Joseph Francis, Trichy – 620 001. 7-B, Arokiasamypillai Lane, Crawford, Trichy – 620 012. [Pan:Aaatr-0494-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Counsel For Ms.G. Vardinikarthik, Advocate & Mr. V. Arunachalesh, Advocate & Mr. R. Sumedha, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R. Vikneswaran, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Counsel for Ms.G. VardiniKarthik, Advocate & MrFor Respondent: Mr. R. Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 1Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)

…s claim, the claim made in the course of assessment proceedings by way of letter and revised computation of income cannot be entertained. Therefore, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Goetze India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), it is held that any claim could be allowed only when the assessee files revised return. Therefore, fresh claim made by the assessee, cannot be allowed merely on the basis of revised working. 3.8. In view of the above discussion, wrong claim made by the assessee under the head "amount deemed to have been applied during the previous year as p…

Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited Satara, Koregaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Satara

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 651/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 651/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Moti Heights, Azaad Chowk, New St-Stand, Koregaon, Satara-415501 Pan: Aaeas1871L . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pr[mo^ Scnat_ [‘L^. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Uma Shankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P(2)

…owing deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. In an appeal, the Ld. NFAC echoed the view of Ld. AO in denying the claim \y pl[]cna r_lc[n]_ on tb_ ^_]cscon o` Hon’\l_ Ap_x Court cn ‘Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT’ [2006, 284 ITR 323]. ITAT-Pune Page 6 of 16 Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Vs ITO ITA No.651/PUN/2024 AY:2013-14 6 In the present case there is no dispute between the rival parties that; (a) the assessee is a co-operative credit society, (b) the assessee is in receipt of income eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act and (c) the assessee has…

Federal Bank Ltd, Kochi vs. ACIT Corp. Circle-1(1 ), Kochi

ITA 399/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(viii)

…fficer. Learned CIT-DR could not pinpoint any specific provision of the Act that such a revenue expenditure items; which is otherwise allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act, could be disallowed for the above technical reasons as per Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and CIT v. M/s.Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). We wish to make it clear that case law CIT . Biocom Ltd. (2021) 131 taxmann.com 187 (Karnataka) has already decided allowability of such an “ESOP” claim qua the discount element therein, granted to employees as a revenue expenditure item. 20 ITA Nos.393-399…