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.

How many judgments cite Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT?

1,842 judgments on BharatTax cite Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 153A.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323)

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1175/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ter considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd., (111 ITR 1), Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383) and Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323) has upheld the powers of the appellate authorities including Ld. CIT(A) to entertain and adjudicate additional claims which was not made by an assessee in the return of income. 8.9 We further note that, on similar set of facts & circumstances, identical contention was also raised by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1172/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ter considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd., (111 ITR 1), Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383) and Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323) has upheld the powers of the appellate authorities including Ld. CIT(A) to entertain and adjudicate additional claims which was not made by an assessee in the return of income. 8.9 We further note that, on similar set of facts & circumstances, identical contention was also raised by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case…

Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2542/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ambika Aggarwal, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37Section 43ASection 92C

…erred. It was further pointed out that CIT(A) has not examined the issue at all on the ground that such new contention cannot be entertained at this stage in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC). The ld. counsel submitted that the treatment given to export receivables from non-AEs should be applied mutatis mutandis to the export receivables from the AEs and therefore, the I.T.A. No.2542/Del/2018 3 Revenue is not justified in making impugned Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of minor delays in collecting the export receivables…

Chiripal Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 708/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 708/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Chirpal Industries Limited, D.C.I.T, Chirpal House, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2), Shivranjani Cross Road, Ahmedabad. Satellight, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaacc8513B

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr.DR

Section 116JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80I

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 708/AHD/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Chirpal Industries Limited, D.C.I.T, Chirpal House, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2), Shivranjani Cross Road, Ahmedabad. Satellight, Ahmedabad-380015. PAN: AAACC8513B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Biren Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Ankit Jain, Sr.DR सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/03/2024 घोरणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement: 02/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED,…

East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. Dc/ACIT Central Circle- 1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 236/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

…s a belated one and simpliciter, the assessee cannot claim the alleged deductions or disallowances or brought forward losses by way of computation in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., vs. CIT, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323. The ld.CIT-DR in view of this stated that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly applicable to the AO and he has rightly not considered the revised return of income and revised computation of income filed on 19.10.2019. ITA Nos.235 & 236/Chny/2023 9. We noted that the admitted facts are that the assessee filed original return of income w…

East Coast Consturctions & Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. Dc/ACIT Cnetral Cricle- 1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 235/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

…s a belated one and simpliciter, the assessee cannot claim the alleged deductions or disallowances or brought forward losses by way of computation in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., vs. CIT, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323. The ld.CIT-DR in view of this stated that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly applicable to the AO and he has rightly not considered the revised return of income and revised computation of income filed on 19.10.2019. ITA Nos.235 & 236/Chny/2023 9. We noted that the admitted facts are that the assessee filed original return of income w…

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 77/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…ver a period of five years in the books of accounts beginning from AY 2010-11. The assessee claimed the depreciation on the goodwill through a note to the revised return of income. The AO denied the depreciation by relying on the decision of Goetz India Ltd. (284 ITR 323) stating that the assessee has not made the claim by filing the revised return but only through a note. The CIT(A) though admitted the claim of the assessee disallowed the depreciation by relying on the order of his predecessor for AY 2010-11. 12. We have heard both the parties, we noticed that the issue is remitted back to the AO by the Co-ordin…

Asstt. CIT -Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lupin Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 1241/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…ver a period of five years in the books of accounts beginning from AY 2010-11. The assessee claimed the depreciation on the goodwill through a note to the revised return of income. The AO denied the depreciation by relying on the decision of Goetz India Ltd. (284 ITR 323) stating that the assessee has not made the claim by filing the revised return but only through a note. The CIT(A) though admitted the claim of the assessee disallowed the depreciation by relying on the order of his predecessor for AY 2010-11. 12. We have heard both the parties, we noticed that the issue is remitted back to the AO by the Co-ordin…

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT(It) 2 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1683/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

Section 195Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

…he ground that no revised return of Income was filed for such claim and thus, restricted the claim under section 44C of the Act. 8.2 The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that: a) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. v CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) can be applied only when the claim for deduction was made first time during the course of assessment. In the present case, the Appellant had already claimed deduction for Head Office Expenditure in the Return of Income, but the same was restricted under section 44C of the Act. Further, the said decision of Supreme Court deals with the power…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Eicher Motors Limited, Delhi

ITA 3721/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

…lief not claimed in the return of income in view of circular No.14(XL35) dated 11.04.1955 issued by CBDT. 04. That the CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 323) does not curtail the power of appellate authorities and the CIT(A) was empowered to consider the claim even though the same was not made in the return of income. 05. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not following the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant holding the same to be "per- incuriam" having been passed without con…

Eicher Motors Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 7(1) New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

…lief not claimed in the return of income in view of circular No.14(XL35) dated 11.04.1955 issued by CBDT. 04. That the CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 323) does not curtail the power of appellate authorities and the CIT(A) was empowered to consider the claim even though the same was not made in the return of income. 05. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not following the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant holding the same to be "per- incuriam" having been passed without con…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad vs. Tkr Educational Society, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Tkr Educational Society, Of Income Tax, 16-2-751/A/31/Ctirumala (Exemptions), Hills, Malakpet, Hyderabad. Hyderabad, Telangana – 500036. Pan : Aaaat7850Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri M. Vijay Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 801B

…per Section 139(5) of the IT Act before the end of the relevant assessment year or before completion of assessment, the claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323, confirming that he cannot entertain deductions without a revised return or proper claim in the original return. 2 Accordingly, Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act on 08.05.2021. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee filed the an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who allowed…

Idfc First Bank Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT-Corp Circle-2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14A

…original or revised return but neither AO nor CIT(A) has considered these two claims on the reasoning that the assessee is barred from making these two claims in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323. The CIT(A) dismissed the claim in regard to amortization of premium on HTM securities by observing in para 9.3 as under:- 9.3 I have carefully considered the relevant and material facts on record, in respect of this ground of appeal, as brought out in the assessment order and submissions made during appeal proceedings. In this case, the appellan…

M/S. International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3811/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshinternational Tractors Ltd, Vs. Dcit (Ltu), Sonalika House, 282, Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Agcr Enclave, Vihar, Sector-Iii, Karkardooma, Delhi- New Delhi 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H Dcit (Ltu) International Tractors Ltd, New Delhi Sonalika House, 282, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80J

…Rs. 1,48,94,594/- was claimed as bad debt written off. The ld AO disallowed this claim of the assessee as it was not made by way of followed rate and applying the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323. The ld CIT(A) ITA No. 3633/Del/2014 International Tractors Ltd observed that in respect of these bad debts written off the assessee had duly offered the income in the earlier years and it was written off as bad debts in its books as it is irrecoverable. Accordingly same would be eligible deduction u/s 37(1)(vii) of the Act. 40. Before us the l…

DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3663/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshinternational Tractors Ltd, Vs. Dcit (Ltu), Sonalika House, 282, Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Agcr Enclave, Vihar, Sector-Iii, Karkardooma, Delhi- New Delhi 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H Dcit (Ltu) International Tractors Ltd, New Delhi Sonalika House, 282, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80J

…Rs. 1,48,94,594/- was claimed as bad debt written off. The ld AO disallowed this claim of the assessee as it was not made by way of followed rate and applying the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323. The ld CIT(A) ITA No. 3633/Del/2014 International Tractors Ltd observed that in respect of these bad debts written off the assessee had duly offered the income in the earlier years and it was written off as bad debts in its books as it is irrecoverable. Accordingly same would be eligible deduction u/s 37(1)(vii) of the Act. 40. Before us the l…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati vs. Shri Pramod Marotrao Waylalwar, Nagpur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 102/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Pavan VedFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y Marathe, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 251(1)(a)

…ts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in admitting that claim of expenditure not shown in the return of income is a clear mistake without appreciating the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetz India Vs CIT 157 Taxmann 1 (SC) in which it was held that a fresh claim cannot be admitted otherwise than by a revised return. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the Audit report filed along with the return and make necessary adjustment of business income and recomputed the taxable i…

Maithan Alloys Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1347/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1347/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Maithan Alloys Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 4Th Floor, Ideal Centre Vs Circle-1(1), Kolkata 9, Ajc Bose Road Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabcm7758B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Lower Authorities Erred In Denying The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80M Of The Act Towards Inter-Corporate Dividends At Rs.19,48,050/-. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That In The Income Tax Return (Itr) Originally Filed As Well As Subsequently Revised, The Assessee Did Not Make The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80M Of The Act For Inter-Corporate Dividend. However, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, This Claim Was Raised & On The Strength Of The Judgement Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Reported In [1998]

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 250Section 80JSection 80M

…he claim of deduction. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities and again asserted the fact that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Assessing Officer does not have the power to entertain the claim made otherwise than through original/revised return. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. 6. The assessee is aggrieved with the order of the lower authorities for not allowing the deduction u/s 80M of the Act at Rs.19,48,050/- claim…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…d computation claimed at Rs.173,59,69,695/-. But the AO noted that this loss i.e., enhanced loss is not claimed through revised return of income and hence, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.105,99,78,952/- for future carry forward and set off as the same has been claimed in the return of income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) noted the fact that in assessee’s case, the claim was not missed altogether in the return of income but the same was claimed th…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…d computation claimed at Rs.173,59,69,695/-. But the AO noted that this loss i.e., enhanced loss is not claimed through revised return of income and hence, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.105,99,78,952/- for future carry forward and set off as the same has been claimed in the return of income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) noted the fact that in assessee’s case, the claim was not missed altogether in the return of income but the same was claimed th…

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…d computation claimed at Rs.173,59,69,695/-. But the AO noted that this loss i.e., enhanced loss is not claimed through revised return of income and hence, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.105,99,78,952/- for future carry forward and set off as the same has been claimed in the return of income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) noted the fact that in assessee’s case, the claim was not missed altogether in the return of income but the same was claimed th…

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

What is Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

Chiripal Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. Dc/ACIT Central Circle- 1(3), Chennai

East Coast Consturctions & Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. Dc/ACIT Cnetral Cricle- 1(3), Chennai

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

Asstt. CIT -Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lupin Ltd., Mumbai

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT(It) 2 (1), Mumbai

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Eicher Motors Limited, Delhi

Eicher Motors Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 7(1) New Delhi, New Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad vs. Tkr Educational Society, Hyderabad

Idfc First Bank Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT-Corp Circle-2(2), Chennai

M/S. International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi

DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati vs. Shri Pramod Marotrao Waylalwar, Nagpur

Maithan Alloys Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai