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

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

ITA 397/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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…

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

ITA 396/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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…

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

ITA 395/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

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…

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

ITA 394/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

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…

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

ITA 393/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

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…

Rajtelevision Network Limited, Chnnai vs. ACIT, Non Corporae Circle-20, Chennai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 531/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 530 & 531/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Acit, Raj Television Network V. Non Corporate Circle 20, Limited, Chennai – 34. No. 32, Poes Road 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacr-3580-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri.K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri.K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. CIT
Section 263

…Rs.11,45,16,892/- against the income assessed. However, the same has be denied by the Assessing officer stating that the AO cannot go beyond the claim as made in the return of income as per Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetz India Us. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 wherein the Apex Court restricted the power of AO to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a Revised Return. The same has been upheld by the ld.CIT(A). 16. It is noted that, the assessee filed a revised computation before the lower authorities for giving a set off of the carried forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation to th…

Raj Teleision Network Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporae Circle-20, Chennai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 530/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 530 & 531/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Acit, Raj Television Network V. Non Corporate Circle 20, Limited, Chennai – 34. No. 32, Poes Road 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacr-3580-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri.K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri.K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. CIT
Section 263

…Rs.11,45,16,892/- against the income assessed. However, the same has be denied by the Assessing officer stating that the AO cannot go beyond the claim as made in the return of income as per Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetz India Us. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 wherein the Apex Court restricted the power of AO to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a Revised Return. The same has been upheld by the ld.CIT(A). 16. It is noted that, the assessee filed a revised computation before the lower authorities for giving a set off of the carried forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation to th…

C I T vs. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd

ITA/531/2008HC Punjab & Haryana05 Aug 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Section 10BSection 10B(3)Section 80

…w as raised in the pr antial questions of law which w 07 (supra), as under:- Substantial questions of law raise A. Whether the Income Tax App granting exemption u/s 10B wh assessee in the return of income o violation of the Hon’ble Suprem Goetze (India) Ltd. 204 CTR 182 B. Whether on the facts and in Appellate Tribunal was justifie deduction u/s 10B in the absen assessee in view of provision 01.04.1996 ? Substantial questions of law alre ITAT-601-2007(supra):- A. Whether the Income Tax App n granting exemption u/s 10B, w assessee in the return of income o violation of the Hon’ble Suprem Goetze (India) Ltd. 204…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 464/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…hich is otherwise not taxable though wrongly admitted cannot be subjected to tax and can be rectified at any time before the assessment is completed and there is no need to file a revised return as held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of M/S Gotez in 284 ITR 323. d) The appellant relied on the following decisions: - CIT Vs. Metalman Auto (P) Ltd 336 ITR 434 (P&H) - CIT Vs. Jai para Bolic Springs Ltd 306 ITR 42 (Del) e) The appellant submitted audited profit and loss account and revised computation of Income for the AY 2009-10. 10.4 The submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. The As…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 463/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…hich is otherwise not taxable though wrongly admitted cannot be subjected to tax and can be rectified at any time before the assessment is completed and there is no need to file a revised return as held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of M/S Gotez in 284 ITR 323. d) The appellant relied on the following decisions: - CIT Vs. Metalman Auto (P) Ltd 336 ITR 434 (P&H) - CIT Vs. Jai para Bolic Springs Ltd 306 ITR 42 (Del) e) The appellant submitted audited profit and loss account and revised computation of Income for the AY 2009-10. 10.4 The submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. The As…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 462/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…hich is otherwise not taxable though wrongly admitted cannot be subjected to tax and can be rectified at any time before the assessment is completed and there is no need to file a revised return as held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of M/S Gotez in 284 ITR 323. d) The appellant relied on the following decisions: - CIT Vs. Metalman Auto (P) Ltd 336 ITR 434 (P&H) - CIT Vs. Jai para Bolic Springs Ltd 306 ITR 42 (Del) e) The appellant submitted audited profit and loss account and revised computation of Income for the AY 2009-10. 10.4 The submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. The As…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 461/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…hich is otherwise not taxable though wrongly admitted cannot be subjected to tax and can be rectified at any time before the assessment is completed and there is no need to file a revised return as held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of M/S Gotez in 284 ITR 323. d) The appellant relied on the following decisions: - CIT Vs. Metalman Auto (P) Ltd 336 ITR 434 (P&H) - CIT Vs. Jai para Bolic Springs Ltd 306 ITR 42 (Del) e) The appellant submitted audited profit and loss account and revised computation of Income for the AY 2009-10. 10.4 The submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. The As…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 460/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…hich is otherwise not taxable though wrongly admitted cannot be subjected to tax and can be rectified at any time before the assessment is completed and there is no need to file a revised return as held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of M/S Gotez in 284 ITR 323. d) The appellant relied on the following decisions: - CIT Vs. Metalman Auto (P) Ltd 336 ITR 434 (P&H) - CIT Vs. Jai para Bolic Springs Ltd 306 ITR 42 (Del) e) The appellant submitted audited profit and loss account and revised computation of Income for the AY 2009-10. 10.4 The submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. The As…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co Operative Bank Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 241/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…hich is otherwise not taxable though wrongly admitted cannot be subjected to tax and can be rectified at any time before the assessment is completed and there is no need to file a revised return as held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of M/S Gotez in 284 ITR 323. d) The appellant relied on the following decisions: - CIT Vs. Metalman Auto (P) Ltd 336 ITR 434 (P&H) - CIT Vs. Jai para Bolic Springs Ltd 306 ITR 42 (Del) e) The appellant submitted audited profit and loss account and revised computation of Income for the AY 2009-10. 10.4 The submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. The As…

The Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1796/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…hich is otherwise not taxable though wrongly admitted cannot be subjected to tax and can be rectified at any time before the assessment is completed and there is no need to file a revised return as held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of M/S Gotez in 284 ITR 323. d) The appellant relied on the following decisions: - CIT Vs. Metalman Auto (P) Ltd 336 ITR 434 (P&H) - CIT Vs. Jai para Bolic Springs Ltd 306 ITR 42 (Del) e) The appellant submitted audited profit and loss account and revised computation of Income for the AY 2009-10. 10.4 The submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. The As…

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 987/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…9 taxmann.com 399 (SC), Civil appeal No.6580 of 2021 D. Tribunal has discretion to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice: For this proposition, he relied on the following judgements:- 1. Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 2. Goetz India CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 57 3. Fibres & Fabrics International (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-11(3), Bangalore (2013) 33 taxmann.com 90 (Bangalore Trib) 4. HL Malhotra & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle12(1), New Delhi(2021) 125 taxmann.com 70 (Delhi) E. Extrapolation not permitted in S&S assessment 1. CIT v. B. N…

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 986/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…9 taxmann.com 399 (SC), Civil appeal No.6580 of 2021 D. Tribunal has discretion to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice: For this proposition, he relied on the following judgements:- 1. Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 2. Goetz India CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 57 3. Fibres & Fabrics International (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-11(3), Bangalore (2013) 33 taxmann.com 90 (Bangalore Trib) 4. HL Malhotra & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle12(1), New Delhi(2021) 125 taxmann.com 70 (Delhi) E. Extrapolation not permitted in S&S assessment 1. CIT v. B. N…

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 985/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…taxmann.com 399 (SC), Civil appeal No.6580 of 2021 D. Tribunal has discretion to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice: For this proposition, he relied on the following judgements:- 1. Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 2. Goetz India CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 57 3. Fibres & Fabrics International (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-11(3), Bangalore (2013) 33 taxmann.com 90 (Bangalore Trib) 4. HL Malhotra & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle12(1), New Delhi(2021) 125 taxmann.com 70 (Delhi) E. Extrapolation not permitted in S&S assessment 1. CIT v. B.…

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 983/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra

…e further claim on account of bad debts written off of Rs. 40,81,493/- u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The additional claim made by the assessee was rejected by the AO in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, 284 ITR 323. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, wherein the claim of the assessee on account of bad debts made during the course of the assessment proceedings was allowed on the ground that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not applicable on the appellate authority. The CIT(A) also relied 3 M/s. CMS Secur…

John Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 847/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…9 taxmann.com 399 (SC), Civil appeal No.6580 of 2021 D. Tribunal has discretion to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice: For this proposition, he relied on the following judgements:- 1. Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 2. Goetz India CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 57 3. Fibres & Fabrics International (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-11(3), Bangalore (2013) 33 taxmann.com 90 (Bangalore Trib) 4. HL Malhotra & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle12(1), New Delhi(2021) 125 taxmann.com 70 (Delhi) E. Extrapolation not permitted in S&S assessment 1. CIT v. B. N…