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 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

Sara International Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Add. CIT, Range-22, New Delhi

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

ITA 3307/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…6 ITA Nos.3307 & 1974/Del/2019 Sara International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT / JCIT 8. Decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was distinguished in Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra) in the following words:- "In Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before the 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 deci…

JCIT, Circle-22(1), New Delhi vs. Sara International Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 1974/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…6 ITA Nos.3307 & 1974/Del/2019 Sara International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT / JCIT 8. Decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was distinguished in Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra) in the following words:- "In Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before the 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 deci…

The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd, Tapi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward2 Bardoli, Bardoli

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

ITA 470/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.470/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Vs At & Po Wanka, Taluka-Nizar, Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Tapi-394370 Building, Opp. Jalaram Akshaymodi40@Gmail.Com Temple, Station Road, Pan No: Aahft 1009 K Bardoli-394601 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ndali Ltd. claim eligible deduction. The Assessing Officer has no power to accept any claim in absence of such claim in the return of income for such claim is made for revised return as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited 284 ITR 323 (SC). He admittedly this is a case where assessee has not filed return of income at all. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that he fully supported the order of lower authorities. 5. I have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the order of lower authorities carefully. I have also deliberated on various case law relied by L…

Goa Minerals Private Limited, Vasco vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

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

ITA 63/PAN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.63/Pan/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Goa Minerals Private Limited, The Assistant P.B.No.14, Salgaocar House, V Commissioner Of Income Dr.F.L.Gomes Road, S Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vasco Da Gama, Goa. Goa – 403802 Pan: Aaacg 6716 C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Veer Raghavan – Ar Revenue By Shri N. Shrikanth – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2023

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)

…filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Assessee made the said claim before ld.CIT(A) also. However, the ld.CIT(A) in para 7 held that said claim is not allowable in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The ld.AR invited our attention to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) for A.Y.2013-14 which was at page 65-72 of the paper book. The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) is empowered to admit such claim, but ld.CIT(A) erred in not admitting such claim. The ld.AR relying on following case laws :  Hon'ble Madras High Court in th…

Income Tax Officer 11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Satguru Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 878/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 69

…decision of the Assessing Officer in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Assessing Officer in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Assessing Officer in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. [(2006, 284 ITR 323, (SC)] Goetze (India) Ltd. [(2006, 284 ITR 323, (SC)] Goetze (India) Ltd. [(2006, 284 ITR 323, (SC)] but the Ld. CIT(A) however has mentioned that direction given and he Ld. CIT(A) however has mentioned that direction given and he Ld. CIT(A) however has mentioned that direction given and the date specified in the original order dated 17.08.2012 a…

Satguru Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 11(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 483/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 69

…decision of the Assessing Officer in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Assessing Officer in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Assessing Officer in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. [(2006, 284 ITR 323, (SC)] Goetze (India) Ltd. [(2006, 284 ITR 323, (SC)] Goetze (India) Ltd. [(2006, 284 ITR 323, (SC)] but the Ld. CIT(A) however has mentioned that direction given and he Ld. CIT(A) however has mentioned that direction given and he Ld. CIT(A) however has mentioned that direction given and the date specified in the original order dated 17.08.2012 a…

Ui Path Srl, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Int.Taxation, Delhi

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

ITA 408/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

…1961 ('the Act') dated 30 December 2021 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Delhl-42 ('Ld. CIT(A)' is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the ratio of Goetze India Ltd [[2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC)] and denying the claim of additional credit of taxes deducted at source (TDS') amounting to INR 3,01,78,429 on the software license income, claimed as not chargeable to tax in the return of income, during the appellate proceedings in addition to the TDS credit claimed by the appellant in its return of income. 3. On the facts and circumstanc…

Jubilant Foodworks Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7937/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Jubilant Foodworks Ltd., Versus Dcit, Circle-1, Plot No. 1A, Sector-16A, Noida. Noida. Pan: Aabcd1821C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Sh. K.M. Gupta, Advocate Sh. Shruti Khimta, A.R. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92A

…he ground that it is not an admissible expenditure and secondly, the assessee had not claimed it in the return of income. In this context, the Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). Against the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. However, learned DRP upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer. 20. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that though in the return of income the assessee had not claimed the deduction on account of ES…

Gunnebo, Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1441/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1441/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Gunnebo Ab Acit (International बिधम/ Po Box No.5181, Goteberg, Taxation), Circle-2(3)(2) Vs. Sweden. Room No.2908, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre-1, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecg9613J (अपीलार्थी /Assessee) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Pratik Shah/Riddhi Maru Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/PratikFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR)
Section 139Section 14Section 143(3)Section 92C

…urn of income and later on in the course of assessment, the same was claimed to be not liable to tax. It is noted that, the AO had rejected the said claim by relying on the decision of 5 A.Y. 2016-17 Gunnebo AB the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd (284 ITR 223) observing that the same was not made by way of revised return of income. We however note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that where claim of deduction was not made in the ROI or by filing a revised ROI, the same cannot be made before the AO, but it was clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no bar in making a fresh claim befor…

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Int Tax) -1(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 516/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.516/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Buro Happold Limited, C/O. Sudit K. Parekh & Co. Llp, Urmix Axis, 06Th Floor, Famous Studio Lane, Dr.E.Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011. Pan: Aabcb-9239-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation -1(3)(2),Mumbai 1810, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा /Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा /Respondent By : Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

…that admittedly the claim was not made in the return of 4 income or revised return of income. The claim was made first time before the DRP. The assessee’s claim was rejected by the DRP following the ratio laid down in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC). The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee prayed for restoring the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to follow the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez Ltd., 69 taxmann.com 285. 4. Shri Anil Sant representing the Department vehemently supported the…

Bapa Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- (Appeal)-National, Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 824/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bapa Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Cit (Appeal) - Nfac 156, Maker Chambers Vi, Mumbai 220 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Bapa Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. CIT (Appeal) - NFAC 156, Maker Chambers VI, Mumbai 220 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AABCB 4559 M (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Date of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short),…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal & Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E)-2(1) Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar Kareeda Bhavan, Elphinston Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaaam3255A ..... Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi & Shri Ashok Patil, Ld.AR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 20Section 250Section 4

…/s 12A. The only reason for the denial of assessee claim by the AO is that such a claim has not been made in the original return filed before him hence he relied upon the judicial pronouncement on honorable supreme court in the case of M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. 284 ITR 323 (S.C) wherein it is provided that assessee cannot make any fresh claim before the assessing officer except by revising its return of income. As in this case no revised return has been filed by the assessee but the same case law doesn’t stop the Ld.CIT(A) and ITAT to entertain the fresh claim of the assessee whether a revised return has been filed…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 137/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal & Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E)-2(1) Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar Kareeda Bhavan, Elphinston Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaaam3255A ..... Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi & Shri Ashok Patil, Ld.AR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 20Section 250Section 4

…/s 12A. The only reason for the denial of assessee claim by the AO is that such a claim has not been made in the original return filed before him hence he relied upon the judicial pronouncement on honorable supreme court in the case of M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. 284 ITR 323 (S.C) wherein it is provided that assessee cannot make any fresh claim before the assessing officer except by revising its return of income. As in this case no revised return has been filed by the assessee but the same case law doesn’t stop the Ld.CIT(A) and ITAT to entertain the fresh claim of the assessee whether a revised return has been filed…

Devendra Mehta, Jabalpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

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

ITA 80/JAB/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaledevendra Mehta, Vs Dcit, 1084, Sanjivani Nagar, Circle-2(1), Jabalpur-482003 (M.P.) Jabalpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afppm8269P Assessee By Shri Sughosh Bhamore & Shri Hitesh Trivedi Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Section 10Section 133Section 143(1)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Devendra Mehta, vs DCIT, 1084, Sanjivani Nagar, Circle-2(1), Jabalpur-482003 (M.P.) Jabalpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AFPPM8269P Assessee By Shri Sughosh Bhamore & Shri Hitesh Trivedi Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.DR Date of hearing 13/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement 20/09/2023 O R D E R PER OM PRAKASH KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 24.05.2022 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- National Facel…

DCIT, Circle- 2, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun vs. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5305/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

…cy. The ld. AO further observed that the claim of section 115A(1)(a)(ii) of the Act was not made by the assessee in the return of income and hence by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), the same need not be entertained at the assessment stage. Accordingly, this new claim of the assessee was held to be not tenable by the ld. AO in the assessment. 10.2. The ld. CIT(A) at the outset observed that the assessee though had not made this claim in the return of income is entitled to make a fresh claim and since the matter is pend…

Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5223/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

…cy. The ld. AO further observed that the claim of section 115A(1)(a)(ii) of the Act was not made by the assessee in the return of income and hence by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), the same need not be entertained at the assessment stage. Accordingly, this new claim of the assessee was held to be not tenable by the ld. AO in the assessment. 10.2. The ld. CIT(A) at the outset observed that the assessee though had not made this claim in the return of income is entitled to make a fresh claim and since the matter is pend…

DCIT, Circle- 2, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun vs. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6173/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

…cy. The ld. AO further observed that the claim of section 115A(1)(a)(ii) of the Act was not made by the assessee in the return of income and hence by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), the same need not be entertained at the assessment stage. Accordingly, this new claim of the assessee was held to be not tenable by the ld. AO in the assessment. 10.2. The ld. CIT(A) at the outset observed that the assessee though had not made this claim in the return of income is entitled to make a fresh claim and since the matter is pend…

Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6126/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

…cy. The ld. AO further observed that the claim of section 115A(1)(a)(ii) of the Act was not made by the assessee in the return of income and hence by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), the same need not be entertained at the assessment stage. Accordingly, this new claim of the assessee was held to be not tenable by the ld. AO in the assessment. 10.2. The ld. CIT(A) at the outset observed that the assessee though had not made this claim in the return of income is entitled to make a fresh claim and since the matter is pend…

ACIT(Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tcs Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…1 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.5199/Mum/2019 (Assessment year: 2014-15) M/s Tata Consultancy Services vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Limited, 9th Floor, Nirmal Building LTU-1, Mumbai, 29th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Centre One, World Trade Centre PAN : AAACR4849R Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. No.5904/Mum/2019 (Assessment year: 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner of Income- vs M/s Tata Consultancy S…

Tata Consultancy Serrvices Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

…1 ITA 5199/Mum/2019 ITA 5904/Mum/2019 M/s TCS Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.5199/Mum/2019 (Assessment year: 2014-15) M/s Tata Consultancy Services vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Limited, 9th Floor, Nirmal Building LTU-1, Mumbai, 29th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Centre One, World Trade Centre PAN : AAACR4849R Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. No.5904/Mum/2019 (Assessment year: 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner of Income- vs M/s Tata Consultancy S…