Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

…ect expenses incurred outside India amounting to Rs. 24,79,25,160/- which were not recorded in accounts maintained in India, thereby ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT(2006) 284 ITR 323(SC) wherein it is held that the Assessing Officer has no power to entertain a claim made otherwise than by filing a revised return of income. 3. Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in allowing additional claim of direct expenses incurred outside India amounting to Rs. 24, 79, 25,160/- me…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.8389/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2005-06) Dcit-2(3), Room No.555, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Magnet House, 2Nd Floor, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacz 0742 K ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit - Dr "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “जे”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस. "रफौररहमान, लेखाकार सद"के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.8389/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2005-06) DCIT-2(3), Room No.555, 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, MUMBAI – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/s. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Magnet House, 2nd Floor, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAACZ 0742 K ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT - DR "ितवादी"ारा/Responden…

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

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

…of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing the additional claim of direct expenses incurred outside India of Rs.13,03,60,455/-, contrary the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. -Vs- CIT {(2006)284 ITR 323 (SC)} wherein it is held that the Assessing Officer has no power to entertain a claim made otherwise than by filing a revised return of income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing relief of Rs.5,35,96,643/- out of expenses related to refurbishment of leasehold Page 5 of 72 pre…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl Ciat 2(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…irst time before him during the course of assessment proceedings and since the claim was not made either in the return of income or in the revised return of income, applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), denied to grant deduction for the same. We find that the decision of Goetze India Ltd does not prohibit an assessee who has a valid claim to be made before the appellate authorities. Moreover the restriction provided by the said decision, shall not apply to appellate authorities. This is provided in the last paragraph of the decision of the…

Gunita Pradeep Kapur, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-19(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalgunita Pradeep Kapur 4Th Floor, Mitra Kunj, 16 Peddar Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 026 Pan: Aivpk6313M ...... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 19(1)(3) Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Gunita Pradeep Kapur 4th floor, Mitra Kunj, 16 Peddar Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 026 PAN: AIVPK6313M ...... Appellant Vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(3) Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant by : Shri K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Rameshwar Meena, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 12/10/2023 Date of pronouncement : 06/11/2023 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Fac…

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

…hat the assessee did not made this claim in the original return filed by it. However, it raised additional claim before the AO which was not accepted by him by citing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) (284 ITR 323) wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the AO can entertain a new claim only if an assessee files a revised return of income. Therefore, he rejected the claim of the assessee. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed copy of TAR (tax audited report) and submission, which shows that an amount of Rs.1,19,07,199/- was paid before the d…

Cyqyator Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.2370 /मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2015-16) Cyquator Media Services Private Limited, 18Th Floor, A Wing Marathon Futurex, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aaecp-0069-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle – 6(2)(1), Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jay Bhansali "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 21/06/2023, For The Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As Eight Grounds. All The Grounds Of Appeal Are In Respect Of A Single Issue I.E. Disallowance U/S. 14A Of 2 The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’] R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 [In Short ‘The Rules’].

…rom the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.(supra). The Assessing Officer in light of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 refused to take cognizance of the claim not made by way of return of income or revised return of income. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision has clarified that the powers of Appellate Tribunal are not impinged to admit the claim made by assessee in a manner other than by way of return of income or revised return of income. Though the asse…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of It (OSD)10(2)(2)Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-9(2)(2), Mumbai

…ided in the favour of Revenue for AY 2012-13 in appellant's own case? 6 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that the new claim cannot be accepted in the course of assessment proceedings?" 28. For the Assessment Year 2013-14 also, both the sides agreed that the grounds raised by the Revenue in the above appeal for the Assessment Year 2013-14 as well as the applicable facts are identical to the appeal preferred by the…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

…ided in the favour of Revenue for AY 2012-13 in appellant's own case? 6 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that the new claim cannot be accepted in the course of assessment proceedings?" 28. For the Assessment Year 2013-14 also, both the sides agreed that the grounds raised by the Revenue in the above appeal for the Assessment Year 2013-14 as well as the applicable facts are identical to the appeal preferred by the…