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

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

ITA 846/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 845/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 842/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels 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 841/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels 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 840/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

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…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels 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 839/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

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…

M/S. Paul Resorts & Hotels 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 838/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

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…

Danaher India Csr Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1984/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Danaher India Csr Foundation, Income Tax Officer – 14(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, B Wing, Art Guild House, Mumbai Phoenix Market City Compound, Vs. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400070 (Pan : Aagcd7976H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ca Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 8Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2022-23 Danaher India CSR Foundation, Income Tax Officer – 14(1)(1), 3rd floor, B Wing, Art Guild House, Mumbai Phoenix Market City Compound, Vs. LBS Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400070 (PAN : AAGCD7976H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, CA Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the asses…

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1142/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

…licant-assessee is not entitled to claim refund due to purported excess payment of tax on dividend distribution (ii) the DDT refund claim was not made by the assessee in the Return of Income (ROI) and consequently in terms of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee cannot claim refund in the absence of any revised return filed in this regard. The application moved under Section 237 was thus rejected. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also declined to interfere with the action of the AO for varied reasons. The relevant operative paragraph of the ord…

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1140/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

…licant-assessee is not entitled to claim refund due to purported excess payment of tax on dividend distribution (ii) the DDT refund claim was not made by the assessee in the Return of Income (ROI) and consequently in terms of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee cannot claim refund in the absence of any revised return filed in this regard. The application moved under Section 237 was thus rejected. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also declined to interfere with the action of the AO for varied reasons. The relevant operative paragraph of the ord…

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1139/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

…licant-assessee is not entitled to claim refund due to purported excess payment of tax on dividend distribution (ii) the DDT refund claim was not made by the assessee in the Return of Income (ROI) and consequently in terms of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee cannot claim refund in the absence of any revised return filed in this regard. The application moved under Section 237 was thus rejected. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also declined to interfere with the action of the AO for varied reasons. The relevant operative paragraph of the ord…

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1138/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

…licant-assessee is not entitled to claim refund due to purported excess payment of tax on dividend distribution (ii) the DDT refund claim was not made by the assessee in the Return of Income (ROI) and consequently in terms of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee cannot claim refund in the absence of any revised return filed in this regard. The application moved under Section 237 was thus rejected. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also declined to interfere with the action of the AO for varied reasons. The relevant operative paragraph of the ord…

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1137/DEL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

…licant-assessee is not entitled to claim refund due to purported excess payment of tax on dividend distribution (ii) the DDT refund claim was not made by the assessee in the Return of Income (ROI) and consequently in terms of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee cannot claim refund in the absence of any revised return filed in this regard. The application moved under Section 237 was thus rejected. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also declined to interfere with the action of the AO for varied reasons. The relevant operative paragraph of the ord…

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1136/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

…licant-assessee is not entitled to claim refund due to purported excess payment of tax on dividend distribution (ii) the DDT refund claim was not made by the assessee in the Return of Income (ROI) and consequently in terms of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee cannot claim refund in the absence of any revised return filed in this regard. The application moved under Section 237 was thus rejected. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also declined to interfere with the action of the AO for varied reasons. The relevant operative paragraph of the ord…

Tresa Jolly, Ernakulam vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Kochi

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

ITA 230/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms.V.Swarnalatha, Senior DR
Section 143(2)Section 80C

…y has the power to examine the same and decide it in accordance with law. The above view of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in the case of Goetze (India) v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and therefore the same is in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A) had misunderstood the judgement and dismissed the appeal which is not correct. 7. We have also gone through the orders relied on by the learned AR in the case of Smt.Halima Zubair v. ACIT (supra), wherein the ITAT Cochin Bench had given a categorical finding about the admissibi…

ACIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 93/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. Sheth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. D/R
Section 139Section 143(3)

…he facts and the submissions and the claim made by the assessee and drawing support from the judicial decisions referred by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) admitted the claim holding that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), did not put any fetter on the powers of the appellate authority to entertain a fresh claim. After admitting the claim, the ld. CIT(A) perused the details furnished by the assessee and held that the I.T.A. No. 93/Mum/2024 4 AO should have perused the details furnished by the assessee and ought to have granted deduction for the additional cla…

M/S. Kodava Education Society, Ponnampet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 764/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeykodava Education Society Acit (Exemptions), Circle-1 Po Box No. 11, Halligattu Unity Building Annexe Vs. Ponnampet 571216 5Th Floor, Mission Road Pan – Aaaak1322J Bengaluru 560027 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishal Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2003-24/1061703575(1) Dated 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Impugned Order Of The Appellate Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Liable To Set Aside In So Far As The Same Is Incorrect, Irregular, Improper, Unlawful & Oppose To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2 That The Learned Appellate Commissioner Erred In Not Taking Cognizance Of The Fact That The Appellant Had Committed Certain Errors & Omissions In Filling Up The Return Of Income Which Ought To Have Been Substituted With The Correct Figures To Arrive At The Taxable Income, If Any & As Such The Impugned Order Is Liable To Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

…the impugned order is liable to set aside. 7 The Learned Appellate Commissioner erred in disregarding the fact that his powers u/s 250 are not, in any way, hindered by the decision of the Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182/(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 8 The Learned Appellate Commissioner erred in upholding the AO's order in contravention of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. 9 The Learned Appellate Commissioner erred in upholding the AO's action of levying interest of Rs.1,52,559/- u/s 234B even when the Appellant is not liable there for under the law. 10 The Learned Appellate Com…

Sonia Pathak Khanna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1193/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 541Section 54F

…nce of an additional claim made by NFAC is unjustified: 2. The NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in denying the benefit of an exemption u/s 54F of the Act merely relying on the decision of M/s. Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] (SC) and thereby holding the Appellant is not entitled for any claim which is not made in the original return of income, though, the same was subsequently made by filing a revised computation in the assessment proceedings without appreciating that the Appellant has duly satisfied all the conditions precedent to claim the benefit u/s 54F. Thus, t…

Seema Heera, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (It) - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 274Section 54

…Officer stated that since assessee had not filed her return of income, claim of assessee for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act is not allowable. For this reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 5. CIT(A), after considering the submissions made assessee and since assessee did not file the return of income, held that her claim of deduction u/s. 54 amounting to ₹ 93,17,462/- is not an allowable. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. In respect of non-filing of return by the assessee, Ld. counsel submitted that as…

DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi vs. Jmw India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4271/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs Jmw India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-13(2), 309, Vikas Deep Building, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, Delhi. – 110 092. Pan: Aaacj3260C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Anand, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Parul Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 08.03.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No. Del/Cit(A)-5/0368/2016-17 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle-13(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Record. The Ld. Dr Submitted That The Order Of The Cit(A) Is Erroneous As Without Examining The Use Of Subsidy Amount Reliance Was Placed On The Judgement Of The Hon’Ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court In The Case Of Shri Balaji Alloys & Others, 333 Itr 335 (J&K). It Was Submitted That The Cit(A) Was Supposed To Examine The Question Of Utilization Of The Subsidy In The Light Of The Judgement Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited, 306 Itr 392 (Sc). The Ld. Ar, However, Relied The Order Of The Cit(A) & Submitted That The Cit(A) Has Not Taken Into Consideration The Judgement Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Sahney Steel & Press Works Limited Vs. Cit (1997) 228 Itr 253 (Sc).

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…10061/2011. The CIT(A) had admitted this additional ground in the light of the law laid down with regard to admission of additional grounds by the appellate authority in the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 and in the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42. 4. Thereupon, the CIT(A) decided this additional ground by following the order at the first appellate stage for AY 2012-13, passed by the predecessor. As we go through the impugned order, we find that no other observation other than fol…