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

Rajiv Venkataraman, Secunderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 174/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

…receipts vis-à-vis the exempt income for which a columnist provided in the return form. 6. Learned AR further submits that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 and Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) it is always open for the assessee to raise the points of law even before the appellate authorities, when consideration thereof does not require any new documents or introduction of new facts. He further submitted that it is always open for the First Appellate Authority to consider a claim permissible under law preferred by the assessee othe…

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Private Limited, Rewari vs. DCIT, Circle, Rewari

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

ITA 1165/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 Mitsui Kinzoku Dcit Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Circle Plant No.242-243, Industrial Rewari Growth, Centre, Sector-3 Bawal, Rewari-123501 Pan No.Aaecm3062B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115(0)Section 250Section 90(2)

…elf, thereby leaving no option for the appellant, but to claim it outside of the ITR. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. AO had erred in not following the CBDT circular 14 (XL-35) dated 11 April, 1955 (C) Non-applicability of the Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT (284 ITR 323) (SC) on the appellate authorities 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) had grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT, is not applicable on appellate authorities. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in disregarding the binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case o…

Usv P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-C-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 891/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blem/S. Usv Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19Th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) V. M/S. Usv Private Limited 1908, 19Th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 35Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. USV Private Limited v. DCIT, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 PAN: AAACU1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Central Circle- 5(2) v. M/s. USV Private Limited 1908, 19th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 PAN: AAACU1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assess…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Blue Dart Express Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1370/MUM/2022[1370]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “I” BENCH MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1370,1371 & 1372/MUM/2022 (AY:2015-16, 2016-17,2017-18) DCIT 1(2) (1) Mumbai, Vs. Blue Dart Express Ltd. Room No. 535, Blue Dart Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Sahar Airport Road, M.K.Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai- 400099. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.PAN/GIR No.AAACB0446L (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Applicant by Mr.SumenduKumarDash.DR Respondent by None. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 18.05.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 15.06.2023 ORDER…

M/S. Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

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

ITA 193/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 250oSection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Satia Industries Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Malour Road, Vill. Rupana, Assessment Centre, Distt. Muktsar. Assessment Unit, I.T. [PAN:-AACCS7233A] Department New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Sh. P.N. Arora & Ashwani Juneja, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Girish Bali, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 17.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 13.06.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal o…

DCIT, Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd (Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.), Mumbai

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

ITA 84/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th For, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th Flr, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. Ayushi Modani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143

…l of the assessee on account of interest subsidy received under Technology Upgradation Fund Rs.8,34,26,992/- as the AO has not allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Goetz India Ltd Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323(SC).” 02. Assessee has also filed cross objection No. 356/Mum/2023 wherein it has raised following grounds:- “The Appellant prefers an appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 47 [hereinafter referred as 'CIT(A)'] dated 03-11- ITA Nos. 84 & 351/Mum/2023 M/s Grasim Industries Ltd; AY.2009-10 2022 on the foll…

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 833/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal आअसं. 833/मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2020-21) Cma Cgm Sa C/O. Cma Cgm Agencies (India) Private Limited, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Tower -3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone(W), Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aabcc-9048-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(1)(1)Mumbai Room No.1713, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Poojari & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : /06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 19/01/2023 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act], For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2 2. In Appeal The Assessee Has Raised 22 Grounds. The Gist Of Grounds Of Appeal Is As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Poojari &For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270

…ee be allowed refund of the tax paid on said income. Since, the claim was not made 9 by way of return of income /revised return of income the Assessing Officer rejected the claim made during assessment proceedings in the light of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323(SC). The assessee raised an objection before the DRP. The DRP following its own decision in assessment year 2017-18 dismissed the objection of assessee. In assessment year 2017-18 the Co- ordinate Bench vide order dated 03/11/2022 in ITA NO.1013/Mum/2021 admitted the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in respect of non-taxability…

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited), Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 356/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th For, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th Flr, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. Ayushi Modani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143

…l of the assessee on account of interest subsidy received under Technology Upgradation Fund Rs.8,34,26,992/- as the AO has not allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Goetz India Ltd Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323(SC).” 02. Assessee has also filed cross objection No. 356/Mum/2023 wherein it has raised following grounds:- “The Appellant prefers an appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 47 [hereinafter referred as 'CIT(A)'] dated 03-11- ITA Nos. 84 & 351/Mum/2023 M/s Grasim Industries Ltd; AY.2009-10 2022 on the foll…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ng a contingent liability. The AO further noted that in this case the assessee has filed revised return still the above claim has not been made in the computation of income. Accordingly, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd (284 ITR 323) rejected the claim for allowability of provision of wage revision made by the assessee only in the notes to computation of income. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the provision for wage revision following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd (2010) 26 taxmann.com 202. Being aggrieve…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ng a contingent liability. The AO further noted that in this case the assessee has filed revised return still the above claim has not been made in the computation of income. Accordingly, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd (284 ITR 323) rejected the claim for allowability of provision of wage revision made by the assessee only in the notes to computation of income. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the provision for wage revision following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd (2010) 26 taxmann.com 202. Being aggrieve…

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…essing Officer only on the ground that the claim for depreciation was not made either in the original return of income or in the revised return of income placing reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC). 17. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) contesting all the above additions made by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions made by the assessee company as well as following his predecessors‟ order in assessee‟s own case for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 held…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…essing Officer only on the ground that the claim for depreciation was not made either in the original return of income or in the revised return of income placing reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC). 17. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) contesting all the above additions made by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions made by the assessee company as well as following his predecessors‟ order in assessee‟s own case for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 held…

ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Limited, New Delhi

ITA 2185/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Ongc Videsh Limited Circle-19(1), Tower-B5, Nelson Mandela New Delhi Marg, Vasant Kinj, New Delhi Pan : Aaaco1230F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 42

…f expenditure. At best it is an expense that has to be ONGC Videsh Ltd. 32 allowed in future years. AO also mentioned that claim is not maintainable at the assessment stage in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze India Limited vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). Against the assessment order, appellant has raised following grounds on this issue: 8.1 That the Ld. AO has erred in not considering the claim of the appellant, filed during the assessment proceedings, for allowing deduction on account of contribution to site restoration fund amounting to Rs.60,219,264 as per Production Sharing Contract f…

ACIT Circle-2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Deutsche Asset Management (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7227/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘D’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 7227/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Vs. M/s. Deutsche Asset ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1) Room No. 561 Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. 5th Floor, Aayakar 14th Floor, The Capital Bhavan, M.K.Road C-70, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 020. Complex, Bandra East Mumbai-400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 95/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) Vs. ACIT,Circle-2(1)(1) M/s. Deutsche Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 561 14th Floor, The Capital 5th Floor, Aayakar C-70, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Bhava…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Tracks & Towers Infratech Private Limited(Part IX), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1515/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…sessee is not an infrastructure facility but only a manufacturer of a specialized product Pozzocrete for which fly ash. The Assessing Officer also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, reported as 284 ITR 323 (SC) and rejected the assessee's claim of deduction u/ s.80IA(4) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). During First Appellate proceedings, assessee raised the said issue of allowability of deduction u/s. 80IA (4) of the Act as the assessee is engaged in the infrastructural activities. The CIT(…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Tracks & Towers Infratech Private Limited(Part IX), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1514/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…sessee is not an infrastructure facility but only a manufacturer of a specialized product Pozzocrete for which fly ash. The Assessing Officer also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, reported as 284 ITR 323 (SC) and rejected the assessee's claim of deduction u/ s.80IA(4) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). During First Appellate proceedings, assessee raised the said issue of allowability of deduction u/s. 80IA (4) of the Act as the assessee is engaged in the infrastructural activities. The CIT(…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa vs. M.Bhagya Lakshmi, Kadapa

ITA 96/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit,Circle-1 Vs. Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Aaykar Bhavan Reddy #2-430-8, Nagarajupet #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar Kadapa Kadapa-516 001

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy,Sr.AR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…s erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act, which wasn't claimed by the assessee in the return of income, ignoring the binding decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Goetze India Ltd 284 ITR 323 wherein it held that assessee was not entitled to claim exemption which was not made in the return of income. 3. Whether the ld. CIT(A) is right in allowing the exemption u1s 54F of the IT Act, under the facts and the circumstances of the case 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has admitted additional evidence regarding conditions to be fulfilled u/s 54F of th…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kadapa vs. S.V.Satish Kumar Reddy, Kadapa

ITA 2236/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit,Circle-1 Vs. Shri S.V.Satish Kumar Aaykar Bhavan Reddy #2-430-8, Nagarajupet #1-700A, Dwaraka Nagar Kadapa Kadapa-516 001

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy,Sr.AR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…s erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act, which wasn't claimed by the assessee in the return of income, ignoring the binding decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Goetze India Ltd 284 ITR 323 wherein it held that assessee was not entitled to claim exemption which was not made in the return of income. 3. Whether the ld. CIT(A) is right in allowing the exemption u1s 54F of the IT Act, under the facts and the circumstances of the case 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has admitted additional evidence regarding conditions to be fulfilled u/s 54F of th…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 519/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalajanta Pharma Ltd. 98, Charkop, Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aaaca5579P ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…the assessee which were fresh claims not in the form of revised claim could not be entertain as alternative mechanism as assessing authority is not empowered to entertain these claims in view of decision of honorable apex court in the case of Goetze India Ltd 204 CTR 182 (2006). Ld.CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this technical ground itself. Assessee being further aggrieved with this order of Ld.CIT (A) preferred this appeal before us. We have thoroughly gone through the order of AO, order of the Ld.CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee at various stages. 3. Ground no. 1 pertains to authority…

Shapoorji Pallonji Oil and Gas Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical

ITA 2434/MUM/2022[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Shapoorji Pallonji Oil & Gas Pvt. The National Faceless Ltd., Assessment Centre, 41/44 Shapoorji Pallonji Centre, Vs. Mumbai. Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005. Pan No. Aaecc 9599 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gautam Thacker Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 02/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

…essee in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Goetze (India) Ltd. [(2006, 284 ITR 323, (SC) (2006, 284 ITR 323, (SC)], on the ground that proceedings under Ld. DRP are extension of the ground that proceedings under Ld. DRP are extension of the ground that proceedings under Ld. DRP are extension of the assessment proceedings. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in assessment proceedings. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in assessm…