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 367,368 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

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

…ss Account. Besides, the claim was not made through IT Return or Revised IT return and therefore fresh claim raised during the course of assessment proceedings was not accepted in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd, [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee relying upon various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal in DCIT v. South Asian Petrochem in ITA Nos. 1222 to 1241/Kol/2014 decided on May 3, 2017. 16.1. We observe that it is settled law that subsidy granted for the purpose/object of encouraging setting up of new…

Technoforce Solutions (I) Private Limited, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik

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

ITA 1381/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technoforce Solutions (I) Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. Private Limited, D-33/35, Midc Industrial Area, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Aabct5257C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dilip Bapat & Shri Milind Modak Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 16.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Has Erred In Not Entertaining The Claim Of The Appellant For Deduction Of Service Tax Of Rs 40,82,852 Under Section 37 Of The Income Tax Act On The Ground That The Said Claim Was Not Made In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Bapat &For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 37

…action of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had 3 rejected the claim for deduction of service tax paid placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No.1040 of 2014) and proceeded to hold that in the absence of claim made in the return of income or by filing revised return of income, the additional claim made during the course of assessment proceedings cannot be entertained. 5.…

M/S. Toyota Financial Services India Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 801/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Vaidehi, CA &For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar

Section 234CSection 43D

…ourt in the case of CIT v. Vashisht Chay Page 3 of 4 Vyapar Ltd., 410 ITR 244 (SC). Since fresh claim was made by the assessee, the same was not accepted by the AO by relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT , 284 ITR 323 (SC). 3. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and filed detailed written submissions. The CIT(A) accepted the claim to the extent of Rs.2,55,45,277. The assessee also raised the issue regarding interest u/s. 234C before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 4. After hea…

ACIT Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2951/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Essar Shipping Limited Acit, Circle 5(1)(1) Essar House, 11, R.No.568, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3707D

For Appellant: Shri Rishav Patawari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, CIT DR

Section 115VSection 143Section 144CSection 28Section 43Section 92Section 92CSection 92F

…tances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT (A) has not erred in admitting the additional ground raised by the assessee in spite of the objection of the Assessing Officer and disregarding the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd v CIT 284 ITR 323 wherein it is clear that there is no provision in the Act to make amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return? 8.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT (A) has not erred in allowing the claim of the assessee not made through the revised return and in…

Atul Projects India Private Limited, Andheri(E), Mumbai vs. DCIT -9(1)(2), (Now Jurisdiction With Dc CC (2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 3295/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Atul Projects India Vs. Dcit-9(1)(2) Private Limited, 5Th Floor, (Now Jurisdiction With Dc Cc(2)(4)) Room No. 802, 8 Th Floor, Trade Avenue Andheri Pratishtha Bhavan, Old East, Suren Road Chakala Cgo, Annexe, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aagca5921P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mahaveer Jain Respondent By : Harmesh Lal Date Of Hearing 01.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.01.2024

For Appellant: Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…P a g e | 1 M/s Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-9(1)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Atul Projects India Vs. DCIT-9(1)(2) Private Limited, 5th Floor, (Now Jurisdiction with DC CC(2)(4)) Room No. 802, 8 th Floor, Trade Avenue Andheri Pratishtha Bhavan, Old East, Suren Road Chakala CGO, Annexe, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAGCA5921P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mahaveer Jain Respondent by : Harmesh Lal Date of Hearing 01.01.2024 Da…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…3.01.2014, the assessing officer has objected to the assessee's claim on the ground that such claim was not made by way of filing revised return. Apparently, be intends to draw strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR 323, though he has not specifically mentioned the same. However, in the said decision itself, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the bar on claiming a deduction not claimed in the return does not apply on the appellate authority. In the decisions in the case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd. (xupro) and Jute Corporation India Ltd. (supra) Hon'b…

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

S & P Capital Iq (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 463/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)

…claimed on goodwill, is not applicable to the assessment year 2018-19. 10. Per contra, learned DR placed heavy reliance on the observations of the learned DRP and submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 (SC) a deduction can be claimed if return has filed only by way of filing of revised return of income and, therefore, the learned DRP rightly held that the learned Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim made otherwise than by filing a revised return of income. She further submitted that since the Hon’ble Apex Court did not con…

DCIT (Exemption) Bhopal, Bhopal vs. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ground no

ITA 990/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit (Exemption) M/S. Indore Education & Bhopal Service Society 4, Sita Building, Yn Road, Vs. Opp. State Bank Of India Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aaati 3186K Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

Section 10Section 10(23)(vi)Section 11Section 13Section 13(3)

…s one of the duties of AO to assist the tax payers in every reasonable way. Thus, Ld.AR has submitted that the AO cannot deny the benefit of section 10(23C)(vi) to the assesse in the garb of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetz (India) Ltd. 284 ITR 323. 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assesse filed its return of income on 17.10.2016 declaring nil income after claiming the exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act. The assessee is registered u/s 12AA vide order dated 13.03.2000 and also approved u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act vide order dated 06.11.2…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Bhopal vs. M/S. Ayushman Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

Accordingly. This ground is allowed in these terms

ITA 610/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ayushman Medical Income-Tax, Diagnostic Private (Central)-I, Limited, Bhopal E-5, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Tawa Complex, Vs. Bittan Market, Bhopal (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aabca 2560 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Ayushman Medical Income-tax, Diagnostic Private (Central)-I, Limited, Bhopal E-5, 3rd Floor, बनाम/ Tawa Complex, Vs. Bittan Market, Bhopal (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) PAN: AABCA 2560 P Assessee by Shri Anil Khabya, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 21.12.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling ag…

DCIT- 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Estates Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2015/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi/Priyank Gandhi/MsFor Respondent: Shri N. V. Nadkarni, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 24Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1936/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA No. 2016/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2013-14) & DCIT Circle 8(2) (1), R. No. 624, 6th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AACCA7777K ....... Appellant Vs. Piramal Estates Pvt. Ltd. 8th floor, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 ..... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Ronak Doshi/Priyank Gandhi/Ms. Jinal Jain, Ld. ARs Respondent by : Shri N. V. Nadkarni, Ld. CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08/11/2023 D…

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2241/Ahd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vodafone India Services बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 4(1)(2) Vs. Indiabulls Finance Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room 1201, 12Th Floor, Tower-1, No.209, Pratyaksh Kar Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, Near Elphinstone (West), Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Mumbai-400013. Ahmedabad-380015. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1849D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv) Revenue By: Letter Dated 11.10.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 31.08.2018, Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Dated 05.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Sole Grievance Of The Appellant Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Depreciation Claimed On Goodwill.

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv)For Respondent: Letter dated 11.10.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

…epreciation on goodwill was not claimed in the return of income and therefore no such claim can be made other than by filing revised return of income. For this, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (284 ITR 323) (ii) The documents produced by the appellant cannot be seen as a source of valuation and the requirements of Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules had not been met. Further, the archived 7 A.Y. 2009-10 Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. information, now being submitted by the appellant, cannot be authenticated, and therefore the department cannot deduce in…

Britannia Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 461/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Britannia Industries Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata 5/1A, Hungerford Street Vs Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata - 700017 [Pan: Aabcb2066P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kush Kanodia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned 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. 24/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Had Suo Moto Computed & Disallowed Sum Of Rs.14,10,610/- Which Inter Alia Included Sum Of Rs.14,19,009/- Computed In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Being 1% Of The Value Of Tax Free Investments & Therefore The Ao Had Factually Erred In Holding That The Aforesaid Voluntary Disallowance Represented Disallowance Offered By Way Of Direct Expenditure U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D(2)(I) & Thereby Wrongly Computed Further Disallowance Of Rs.13,32,000/- In Terms Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii).

For Appellant: Shri Kush Kanodia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, D/R

Section 115Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 45Section 80G

…the decision rendered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the appellant’s own case which is reported in 396 ITR 677. In the decided case the Hon’ble Court after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Goetze (India) Ltd (284 ITR 323) and Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. (111 ITR 1) has held that the appellate authority has the power to entertain new claim if the grounds raised are bonafide. Thus, in principle, we agree that the appellant is legally entitled to raise this claim before us. 13. Now coming to the merits of this claim, we note that the provisions of Section…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 3/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…ated 06.12.2019 (supra) wherein it had after being confronted by the AO sought to correct its wrong claim would not assist its case. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court, in its aforesaid order, had observed that an assessee is not vested with any right to raise a claim before the AO otherwise than by filing a revised return of income. In case the assessee company before us intended to seek a further correction of the “book profit” disclosed by it in its revised return of income by an…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

Ankur Nahar, Bhilwara vs. CIT/ ITO, Ward-2, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

ITA 174/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 32Section 36(1)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sh.Ankur Nahar Vs. CIT, NFAC, / ITO, 55, Gandhi Nagar, Bhilwara, Bhilwara. Rajasthan. [PAN:ABUPN8405H] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA Respondent by Sh. Laxman Singh Gurjar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 06.12.2023 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, De…

Jai Bhavani Pattin Sahakar Sangh Niyamit, Bijapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Bijapur

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

ITA 717/BANG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…n response to notice u/s. 148 and the same should have been claimed in the return u/s. 139 of the Act. He therefore disallowed deduction u/s 80P as fresh claim relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). ITA Nos.716 & 717/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 4 5. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) issued various notices on different dates, but the assessee did not reply to any of the notices. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO and dismissed the appeals of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeals before the ITAT. 6. Before us,…

Jai Bhavani Pattin Sahakar Sangh Niyamit, Bijapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1 Tps, Bijapur

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

ITA 716/BANG/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Shri. Pankaj Kapur, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 708/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 54F

…ceedings. 10.The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that it was not a case of no claim for deduction in the return of income to apply the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323. 11. Even otherwise the learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the judgment in the case of Goetze Page 3 of 8 has no application in the appellate proceedings and the Commissioner (A) was entitled to consider the claim of the appellant when the material evidence is available before him. 12.The learned Commissioner (A) ought to ha…

Indus Towers Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Petition of the assessee is hereby dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1051/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 14ASection 251(2)

…aid on dividend to non-resident shareholders applying tax rates provided under respective DTAA for dividend. These issues were not even adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) by applying the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). This action of the ld. CIT(A) is grossly illegal in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd itself wherein it was very clearly mentioned in the said decision 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 th…