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 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 367,344 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 14A Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 153A Section 143(1)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 139(5)book profits section 115j revenue expenditure section 115jb capital expenditure disallowance under section 14a section 32 section 254 section 37(1)transfer pricing adjustment liable to tax

Judgments citing Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

Xchanging Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-27(2), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3923/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3923/Del/2019, A.Y.2014-15) Xchanging Technology ACIT, Services India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-27(2), Rectangle-1, D-4 District Vs. New Delhi Centre, Saket New Delhi PAN : AABCR5609L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. & Sh. A T Panda, Adv. Respondent by Sh. V K Dubey, SR DR Date of Hearing 17/01/2024 Date of Pronouncement 23/02/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of…

Itd Cementation India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1401/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dcit Itd Cementation India Ltd. Central Circle 5(1) 9Th Floor, Prima Bay, Room No.1928, 19 Th Floor, Tower-B, Gate No.5, Air India Building, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 072 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1426A Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ramkrishna Bandi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ramkrishna Bandi, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM DCIT ITD Cementation India Ltd. Central Circle 5(1) 9th Floor, Prima Bay, Room No.1928, 19 th Floor, Tower-B, Gate No.5, Air India Building, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 072 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACT1426A Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta, AR Revenue by : Shri Ramkrishna Bandi, CIT DR Date of hearing: 18.12.2023 Date of pronouncement : 22.02.2024 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. ITA No. 1401/Mum/2023, is filed by ITD Cementation India Ltd…

Jai Kishan, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -39(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 947/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jai Kishan, Vs Ito, 737, Village Pooth Khurd, Ward-39(3), New Delhi-110039. New Delhi. Pan-Aiepd4881E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Aakriti Dhawan, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54B

…1961 (“the Act”). But the lower authorities did not admit the claim of the assessee. In our view, Ld.CIT(A) being the First Appellate Authority ought to have admitted the claim since the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. vs CIT 284 ITR 373 [SC] do not put any fetters on the powers of Appellate Authority. Moreover, law is well settled that if any, deduction is available under law, same shall be allowed to the assessee. Therefore, looking to the totality of the facts and particularly, when the AO had himself referred the matter to the DVO to ascertain the FMV of the land in question…

Vijay Srinivas Bobba, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 833/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Vijay Srinivas Bobba, Vs. Dcit, Flat No.502, Indraprastha Ruhe, Circle – 2(2)(1), Pattandur Agrahara Village, Bengaluru. Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aitpb 9536 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Prashanth G. S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…quisition. 4. Aggrieved by the Order of Assessment, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) held that assessee has to necessarily file the revised return under section 139(5) of the Act, for claiming the benefit of higher value of cost of acquisition. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed two sets of Paper Books. One set of Paper Book enclosed, the ca…

Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

ITA 6866/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR

Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…on gross sale consideration including amount in custody of escrow and not accrued per se, the assessee is entitled to raise claims not made in the ROI before the Appellate Authorities in accord with judicial dicta echoed in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 306 ITR 42 (Del and other host of judgments. The assessee contends that in view of the complex and technical provisions contained in Indian Income Tax, it may not be unreasonable to expect the tax payers to miss on some of their rightful claims/concessions when they file their tax returns in the first…

Minosha India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2129/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…statement of facts. On the other hand, the AO has denied to accept the revised computation containing additional depreciation claimed by the appellant based on sound reasoning and after referring to the relevant case law of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) (284 ITR 323), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that no deduction or claim can be allowed to the appellant otherwise than by a revised return. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the AO and dismiss the appeal of the appellant.” 5.1. Before us the learned counsel for the assessee has specifically submitted that during…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT-DR and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.AR

Section 116Section 143(3)Section 92C

…the claim of assessee. 14. We find that in A.Y 2007-08 the assessee had made claim on account of pro-rata amount of leasehold land by way of Note No.4 to the computation of income. The A.O and the DRP rejected the claim of assessee citing Goetz (India) Ltd., 284 ITR 323(SC). The Tribunal admitted the claim of assessee and restored the issue back to the file of A.O holding as under:- “ 13. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. It is evident, the assessee’s claim of deduction on account of amortization of upfront payment made towards leasehold land was rejected both by the Assessing…

Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1524/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…tating that such claim cannot be entertained as it was not made either in the original return of income or through revised return of income. While doing so, they relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 39. Before us, the assessee has furnished written submission in support of its claim. 40. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of the ITAT, Special Bench, in case of DCIT vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd and others (ITA No. 6997/Mum/2019 & Ors.) dated 20.04.2023. 4…

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1020/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K R Vasudevan &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1019 & 1020/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2020-21 M/s. United Breweries Ltd., The Deputy Level 3, UB Tower, Commissioner of UB City, Income Tax, Bangalore North, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAACU6053C APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri K R Vasudevan & Assessee by Shri Ankur Pai, Advocates Revenue by : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 22-01-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31-01-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER P…

DCIT, Circle -13(1), Delhi, C.R. Building vs. Loop Telecom and Trading Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2897/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit Vs. Loop Telecom & Trading Circle – 13 (1) Limited Delhi 127, Manmala Tank Road, Taikalwadi Mahim West, Mumbai – 400016 Pan No.Aagcs0351R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Ganesh Rajgopalan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 Order

Section 68

…acts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in entertaining the additional ground raise by the assessee during the appellate proceedings in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M's Goetze (India) Ltd. Ve CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 2. That whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 134,22,08,000/- on account of share premium in excess of intrinsic value of the shares u/s 68 of the Act. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend. vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid ground (s) of a…

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

…of income of Rs.1312,95,39,888 thereby resulting in an alleged additional claim under the said section of Rs. 159,22,24,604. The Pr. CIT erred in relying upon the Supreme Court ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 decision in the case of Goetze India Limited vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] to deny the additional claim. 5.2. The Pr. CIT erred in not appreciating the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) as per which in respect of provisions for bad and doubtful debts created in the books. a deduction is to be given at an amount not exceeding 7.5% of the total income computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VI…

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1921/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…t accept new claim so put forth by the assessee. He held that the assessee has made new claim without filing revised return of income. In this regard, he took support of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). 6.1 The learned CIT(A) also did not accept the contentions of the assessee. However, he accepted alternative contentions of the assessee that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the amount of exempt income and directed the AO accordingly. 6.2 We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. The Ld A…

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3375/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…regard submitted that the assessee for the first time made the claim before the CIT(A) with regard to the ESOP Expense. The CIT(A) did not allow the claim of assessee following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(A) also did not accept the submission of the assessee that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Biocon Ltd. (2020) 430 IR 151 (Kar. HC) HDFC Bank Ltd. 12. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the additional claim based on facts existing on record should have been admitted a…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3374/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3371/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1784/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Shankaraiah Telakapally, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Nalgonda

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

ITA 655/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shankaraiah Telakapalli, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4-10-520/Cs/1, Sainagar Ward – 1, Colony, Ward-24, Nalgonda. Nalgonda, Telangana - 508001. Pan : Alipt1315Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Phanindra, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Phanindra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr.A.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 24Section 69ASection 80CSection 80ESection 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shankaraiah Telakapalli, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4-10-520/CS/1, Sainagar Ward – 1, Colony, Ward-24, Nalgonda. Nalgonda, Telangana - 508001. PAN : ALIPT1315Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S. Phanindra, Advocate. Revenue by: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr.A.R. Date of hearing: 18/01/2024 Date of pronouncement: 22/01/2024 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National…

Dadi Akhil, Secunderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 580/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 ) Shri Dadi Akhil Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Secundrabad Central Circle 3(2) Pan:Ahjpa1911C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.9.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2020-21. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.35,88,126/-.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 143(2)

…sing Officer was not satisfied by the arguments advanced by the assessee on the ground that the assessee himself has declared total income of Rs.6,58,13,020/-. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (S.C), the Assessing Officer held that the claim of the assessee is not valid without a valid re-revised return of income. He accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.6,58,13,020/-. 5. Since the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT (A) despite number of opportunities granted, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appea…