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 367,194 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

Prakash Jwerchand Oswal, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 927/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.927/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 57

…ving the interest income, share of profit and the salary from the partnership firms. Therefore, the same should be allowed as a deduction. It was further contended that the AO ought not have applied the ratio of the decision of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) inasmuch as it does not amount to a fresh claim made. However, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the share of profit from the partnership firms is exempt by virtue of provisions of section 10(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the expenses attributable to earning of the share of profit cannot be allowed as deduction. 4.…

Anish Tandon, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 70(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2664/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekanish Tandon, Vs. Acit, Circle 70(1), M-205, Greater Kailash – Ii, Delhi. Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Aadpt5486A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Advocate Shri Maneesh Upneja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 28.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Bad In Law, Wrong In Facts Against Natural Justice. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred By Not Allowing Foreign Tax Credit Despite The Fact That Tax Was Paid Overseas & Form 67 Was Filed Before The End Of The Assessment Year.”

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 90(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER Anish Tandon, vs. ACIT, Circle 70(1), M-205, Greater Kailash – II, Delhi. DELHI – 110 048. (PAN : AADPT5486A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Baldev Raj, Advocate Shri Maneesh Upneja, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date of Order : 04.07.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 28…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adoni vs. T Rama Subba Reddy, Adoni

ITA 1133/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…45,45,000/- made by the buyer to third parties on behalf of the assessee as per the request of the assessee which are not claimed by the assessee in his Return of Income ignoring the binding decision of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) ? 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is right, under facts and circumstances of the case in allowing the development expenditure of Rs.2,00,00,000/- to the assessee without any evidence and without giving any opportunity to the A.O. as required under Rule 46A to verify the claim of the assessee. 6. Any other additional ground that may be urged at the…

Surya Motors, Abohar vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 302/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 302/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Surya Motors, Vs. The Dcit, Near Dav Campus, बनाम Central Circle-3, Hanuman Road, Ludhiana Abohar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadfs2727B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None ( Written Submissions ) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharam Vir, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana (Herein Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’ ) Dated 10.03.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Tds Of Rs. 41157/- Relating To National Insurance Co. Ltd.

For Appellant: None ( written submissions )For Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & DR KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 302/CHD/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Surya Motors, Vs. The DCIT, Near DAV Campus, बनाम Central Circle-3, Hanuman Road, Ludhiana Abohar "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AADFS2727B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : None ( written submissions ) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 27.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date…

Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 771/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250

…f the Tribunal cited (supra). Accordingly, once again, we direct the NFAC to decide the issue only on merit and not on admission of that ground. 4.1 Further, we also make it clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) (284 ITR 323), wherein held that “The decision was restricted to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Decision of the Delhi High Court affirmed.” 4.2 Accordingly, the issue in dispute…

Sunil Ramesh Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 17(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1199/MUM/2024[2013 - 2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 1199/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Sunil Ramesh Gupta Vs. Ito-17(3)(4) 31, Sahakar Building Room No. 123 B Road, Churchgate 1St Floor Mumbai-400 020. Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Pan : Aabpg3465A Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Smt. Madhura Karpe Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi Am 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Mr. Sunil Ramesh Gupta For Assessment Year 2013 – 14 Against The Appellate Order Of Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Kolkata (The Learned Cit – A) Dated 17/1/2024 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 18Th/3/2016 Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Income Tax Officer – 17 (3) (4), Mumbai Was Partly Allowed. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Appellate Order & Has Preferred Appeal For The Solitary Ground That The Learned Cit – A Confirmed Denial Of Deduction Of Rs. 1,936,390/– Of Interest Under Section 24 (B) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 To The Assessee. 3. Assessee Is An Individual Proprietor Of Two Proprietary Concerns, Carrying On Job Works Of Axle India Ltd, Filed His Return Of Income On 5/8/2013 At Total Income Of Rs. 710,760/–. Return Was Picked Up For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143 (2) Was Issued On 5/9/2014. Page 1 Of 4

Section 143Section 24

…ITA No 1199 / MUM/2024 AY 2013-14 Sunil Ramesh Gupta V ITO 17(3)(4) Mumbai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Prashant Maharishi (AM) I.T.A. No. 1199/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Sunil Ramesh Gupta Vs. ITO-17(3)(4) 31, Sahakar Building Room No. 123 B Road, Churchgate 1st Floor Mumbai-400 020. Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road PAN : AABPG3465A Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Smt. Madhura Karpe Department by Shri R.R. Makwana Date of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi AM 1. This appeal is filed by Mr. Sunil Ramesh G…

Income Tax Officer-22(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Ahuja Tower Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 859/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

…t grant any relief to the assessee on the basis that claim of deduction on the interest income of Rs.30,19,574 would require a revised return of income for which the time has elapsed. 18. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. v/s CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 323 and Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) has held that the appellate authority can entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee, even if such a claim was not made in return of income or by way of revised return of income. 19. It is the plea of the assessee that the int…

Johnson & Johnson Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Add/JCIT (A)-5 Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1473/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…me. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, and by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Johnson & Johnson Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v/s CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 323, held that the powers of the first appellate authority are coterminous with that of the assessing officer and the appellate authority cannot do what the Assessing Officers ought to have done. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The…

Ritika Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Vcentral Circle-4, New Delhi

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

ITA 430/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2013-14

For Respondent: Ms. Beenu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2013-14 Ritika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4 280, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana TAN/PAN: AABCR5510N (Appellant) (Respondent) Applicant by: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Ms. Supriya Mehta, Chartered Accountant Respondent by: Ms. Beenu, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 10 06 2024 Date of pronouncement: 19 06 2024 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner…

Jaipur Jewellery Show, Jaipur vs. ACIT-DCIT Circle (Exemp.), Jaipur

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

ITA 164/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 264

…uld exercise his discretion in permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also." (p. 386) 17. In Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 3231 (SC), wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the decisi…

Swastha Bikash Samiti, Scb Medical College, Cuttack vs. ITO(Exemption), Cuttack

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 328/CTK/2023[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack06 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: None (Adjn petition)For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 11Section 12ASection 147

…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. P a g e 15 | 16 ITA Nos.32…

Swasthya Bikash Samiti, Scb Medical College, Cuttack vs. ITO(Exemption), Cuttack

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 327/CTK/2023[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack06 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: None (Adjn petition)For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 11Section 12ASection 147

…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. P a g e 15 | 16 ITA Nos.32…

Swasthya Bikash Samiti, Scb Medical College, Cuttack vs. ITO(Exemption), Cuttack

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 326/CTK/2023[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack06 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: None (Adjn petition)For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 11Section 12ASection 147

…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. P a g e 15 | 16 ITA Nos.32…

Swasthya Bikash Samiti, Scb Medical College, Cuttack vs. ITO(Exemption), Cuttack

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 325/CTK/2023[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack06 Jun 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: None (Adjn petition)For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 11Section 12ASection 147

…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. P a g e 15 | 16 ITA Nos.32…

Swasthya Bikash Samiti Scb Midical College Hospital, Cuttack vs. ITO(Exemption), Cuttack

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 324/CTK/2023[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack06 Jun 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: None (Adjn petition)For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 11Section 12ASection 147

…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. P a g e 15 | 16 ITA Nos.32…

Shri Rangasamy Sekar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-17(1), Chennai

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

ITA 379/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.379/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Rangasamy Sekar, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 76, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Gopalapuram, Chennai 600 083. Non Corporate Circle 17(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aakps4106P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K.R. Sudersan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Sudersan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)

…a claim, without being a claim in the return of income. Having aggrieved, the assessee has challenged the same before the ld. CIT(A) and prayed to direct the Assessing Officer to consider the same, by placing reliance in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the first appellate authority declined to entertain the same by stating that the assessee has not filed revised return of income for claiming the deduction. 4. Before us, the ld. AR submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) that the appellate authority has power to direct the Assessing Officer t…

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Navin Fluorine International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

ITA 9/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: 30/05/2024
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT-2(3)(1), Navin Fluorine International Ltd., 552, Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 602, Natraj by Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Rustomjee, Sir Mathuradas Mumbai-400020. Vansanji Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. PAN NO. AABCP 0464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Arati Vissanji, Mr. Aamod Prabhudesai : Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR Revenue by : 30/05/2024 Date of Hearing : 04/06/2024 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH…

Vaibhav Singhal, Bangalore vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(5), Saharanpur

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

ITA 3585/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekvaibhav Singhal, Vs. Ito, Ward 3(3)(5), 102, Golden Paradise, Saharanpur. 2Nd Cross Street, Hennur Bande Bus Stop, Bangalore – 560 043 (Karnataka). (Pan : Dawps9391K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.P. Chitambram, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2024 Date Of Order : 29.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. The Appellants Objects To The Order Dated 12 October 2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) Issued By The Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) For The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Grounds: 2. Denial Or Claim Of Foreign Tax Credit U/S 90 Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chitambram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER Vaibhav Singhal, vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(5), 102, Golden Paradise, Saharanpur. 2nd Cross Street, Hennur Bande Bus Stop, Bangalore – 560 043 (Karnataka). (PAN : DAWPS9391K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri S.P. Chitambram, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.05.2024 Date of Order : 29.05.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Face…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited

Accordingly the same stands dismissed without

ITAT/147/2024HC Calcutta24 May 2024

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 24Th May, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Appellant.

Section 14ASection 2Section 260ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 55

…holding the order of the CIT[A] allowing deduction of Rs.7,61,48,526/- which was claimed by assessee only during assessment proceedings; without considering the fact that binding decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 in applicable to Assessing Officer as well as CIT[A] who has conterminous role as of Assessing Officer ? 5 Mr. Somak Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee submitted that the respondent company went into liquidation and the resolution plan has been approved by the National Company Law Tribunal by order dated…

Ravi Shishodia (L/H of Nannu), Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(5), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 372/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI G. S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 46ASection 54BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sh. Ravi Shishodia Income Tax Officer L/H of Sh. Nannu Vs. Ward-2(5) C/o Sanjeev Anand & Ghaziabad Associates 77, Navyug Market Ghaziabad-201001 PAN-AYAPN3411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2024 Date of Pronouncement 21/05/2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad [hereinafter referre…