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 367,514 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

Jaigopal Garodia Vivekananda Vidyalaya Trust, Chennai vs. DDIT (Exemptions) III, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs 2010-11 to

ITA 1351/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1350-1353/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S.Jaigopal Garodia Vivekananda- V. The Dy. Director Of Income- Vidyalaya Trust, Tax (Exemptions)-Iii, U-6, Seventh Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. [Pan: Aaatj 0208 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 1Section 11(2)Section 11(6)

…rn, but there is no prohibition for the appellate authorities to admit fresh claim made by assessee to decide the issue and this principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). Therefore, to this extent, we are ITA Nos.1350-1353/Chny/2019 :: 9 :: not in agreement with the reasoning given by the AO to deny depreciation claimed for earlier assessment years. 10. Be that as it may, but facts remain that the assessee has claimed depreciation pertains to AYs 2001-02 to 2009-10 in one go for the AY 2011- 12. Assumin…

Jaigopal Garodia Vivekananda Vidyalaya Trust, Chennai vs. DDIT (Exemptions) III, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs 2010-11 to

ITA 1350/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 1Section 11(2)Section 11(6)

M/S Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Dharwad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hubballi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 611/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, C.A, S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D George, CIT (DR)

Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36

…itr 323 (SC)." ITA Nos.611 & 720/Bang/2020 Page 25 of 27 23. The ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A) has accepted the claim of the assessee without revising return of income filed by him ignoring judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), therefore the CIT(A) is not justified in giving relief to the assessee, hence the order of the AO should be restored. 24. The ld.AR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 25. After going through the record and arguments put forth by the before us, the revenue has challenged that the CIT(A) cannot accept the claim of the assessee. However, the…

Shramik Mahila Mandal, Mumbai vs. Ld Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Thane

ITA 447/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

…M/s. Shramik Mahila Mandal 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not entertaining additional claim of exemption u/s 10(23)(iiiad), thereby departing from the law laid by Hon. Apex Court in the case of Goetze India v. CIT (284 ITR 323). 3. The Assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary or withdraw any or all the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the issues at hand are: assessee being a charitable trust registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has file…

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 460/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)

…idence before the AO and revised computation of income. The contribution was made before the due date for filing the return and hence the entire amount was an allowable deduction as per Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. V. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC). 34 The learned D.R. did not have any objection. 35 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We noticed that the AO has not examined the details as per the directions of the DRP and has admitted that gratuity payment required further enquiry. The AO has made disallowance considering the provisions of Section…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Astra Zenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 446/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)

Munish Babaji Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 744/MUM/2022[MUNISH BABJI SAWANT]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022

For Appellant: Shri. Anil SatheFor Respondent: M/s. Neeta Jeph

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

…7.2011. 3. The Assessing Officer held that; i) The Assessee did not show the capital gains in his computation of income along with return of income. These facts emerged during the scrutiny proceedings. Therefore, as held by the Supreme Court in Goetz (I) ltd. 284 ITR 323 (SC), no new claim 3 I.T.A. No. 744/Mum/2022 MUNISH BABAJI SAWANT can be made before the Assessing Officer except through a revised return and not through mere filling of revised computation as in this case. ii) There is failure on the part of the Assessee to deposit the capital gains in the capital gains account scheme before due date of furnis…

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERA AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner IT(TP)A No. Hosur Road, of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), PAN: Bangalore. AAACI4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee by CA : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue by Standing Counsels for Dept. Date of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal ari…

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1526/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalrenaissance Services Bv, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 Pan: Aaecr4995E ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No. 1712, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Paras Savla/Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Renaissance Services BV, C/o Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 PAN: AAECR4995E ...... Appellant Vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), 17th Floor, Room No. 1712, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ..... Respondent ITA No. 2360/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2017-18) DCIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), 17th Floor, Room No. 1712, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-40…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the results, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 716/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Everest Industries Ltd. 2303, Fairfield-A, Majhiwada Bridge, Thane (West)-400601 Pan: Aaace7550N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1 Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms. Nilu Jaggi, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155J

…question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee. 26. Incidentally, in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. –vs.- CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Apex Court dealt with the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim made before the AO, otherwise than through revised return filed on time and held that such claim cannot be entertained by AO. However, while concluding, the Apex Court made it abundantly clear that the said decision doesn't affect the power of the Tribunal to…

Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7118/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7118/Mum./2010 (Assessment Year : 2006–07) J.M. Morgan Stanley Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt. Ltd.) ……………. Appellant 18F/19F, Tower–2, One Indiabulls Centre 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai 400 013 PAN – AAACJ4998F v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent Circle–4(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Sunil M. Lala Revenue by : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha Date of Hearing – 29/08/2022 Date of Order – 25/11/2022 O R D E…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 8(2), Pune vs. Jagtap Patil Promoters & Builders, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

ITA 35/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.35/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Jagtap Patil Promoters & Ward-8(2), Pune. Vs Builders, S.No.152, Pimple Gurav, Pune – 411061. Pan: Aagfj 0403 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suniol Ganoo – Ar Revenue By Shri M.M.Chate – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Pune For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)- 6, Pune Dated 04.10.2017 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2016 Passed By The Ito Ward 8(2) Pune U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Not Appreciating That It Was Only After Scrutiny Proceedings Started That The Assessee Paid The Mat. Thus By Filing Nil Return & Not Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) The Assessee Was Trying To Evade Payment Of Taxes. The Claim Of The Assessee That Filing Of Nil Return Was Clerical Error Does Not Hold Ground? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating The Ratio Laid

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

…d circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the ratio laid ITA No.35/PUN/2018for A.Y. 2014-15 Jagtap Patil Promoters & Builders [A] down by the Honble Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. Goetze India Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 323 wherein it has been held that A.O. cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the present case the assessee has neither claimed deduction u/s 80IB while filing the return of income nor has it revised its return to claim the deduction? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld…

Shantinath Detergents Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amal Shudhir Kamat, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 250

…। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 467/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shantinath Detergents Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of Income P-15, Kalakar Street Tax, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata Vs Kolkata - 700058 [PAN : AADCS4720M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCA Revenue by : Shri Amal Shudhir Kamat, CIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/11…

M/S the Oriental Inssurance Co.Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 200/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 44

…/ AO erred in computing income of the Appellant under section 115JB of the Act. 5.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant by wrongly following decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323(SC). 5.2 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) / AO erred in not appreciating that as per decision of Hon‟ble ITAT for AY 2005-06 in appellant‟s own case provisions of section 115JB are not applicable. 6. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding levy of interest under sections 234B and 234D of the Income Tax Act. 7. That on facts and…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

Section 2Section 37Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B

…y submitting that, the assessee did not file revised return in respect of the claim, and therefore the assessing officer was precluded from considering the claim. The Ld.AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetz India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323. 2.4 The next issue considered by the Ld.AO was in respect of the transfer agreement entered into with Splash Fashions India Pvt. Ltd. by the assessee wherein ‘splash’ brand was transferred. 2.4.1 The Ld.AO noted that the assessee transferred its assets amounting to Rs.22,35,71,677/-, based on the book values at the consideration of Rs.28,16,00,0…

Hexa Securities & Finance Company Limited., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1124/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Sr. DR

Section 14A

…ance upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 372 ITR 694 (Del.). On a query from the Bench about the applicability of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. – (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), ld. Counsel stated that the said decision was only applicable to the AO but not to ld. CIT (A). 7. Upon hearing both the parties and perusing the records, we find that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) clearly held that AO and CIT (A) have no power to entertain a claim otherwise than revised return of incom…

Macrotech Developers Ltd.(Successor to Lodha Impression Real Estate P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Range-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 527/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2016-17) Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To Lodha Impression Real Estate Private Limited,) 412, Floor -4, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road,Horniman Circle. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl-1490-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Central Range – 7(3), Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Seth "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj SethFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…dings. The Assessing Officer was right in rejecting to entertain the claim made during assessment proceedings. However, the powers of the Appellate Authority are not impinged to entertain the additional claim made by the assessee [Re: Goetze (India) Ltd. CIT, 284 ITR 323]. Although, the claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer being not maintainable, still the Assessing Officer gave findings on merits as well, rejecting the same. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) in para 6.3.21 of the order has recorded the fact that in the preceding Assessment Years the claim was allowed by the CIT(A) an…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

…ssessment proceedings was claimed an exclusion from interest income i.e. from „income from other sources‟. The claim made by the assessee was denied by the AO by placing reliance upon the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The learned DRP following directions rendered in assessee‟s own case in assessment year 2013–14 rejected the objections filed by the assessee on this issue. In conformity, the AO passed the impugned final assessment order. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 61. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused…

Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 495/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…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…

Birla Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 494/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B