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 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

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2112/KOL/2018[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…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2111/KOL/2018[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

…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…

Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -3, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 78/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10(38)Section 56

…t for the LTCG of Rs.1,93,17,241/-.During the assessment proceedings the Assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(38) for LTCG of Rs.1,93,17,241/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) following Hon’ble SC decision in Goetz India Ltd 284 ITR 323. However, in the assessment order the AO held that the scrips P S I T Infrastructure and Services Ltd (PSIT) and Mahavir Advanced remedies Ltd(MARL) were penny stocks, tainted scrips utilized for the purpose of accommodation entries. Therefore, the AO held that LTCG of Rs.1,93,17,241/- as bogus and added the amount u/s.56 of the Act. Aggrieved by…

M/S. Jindal (India) Ltd., West Bengal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for the reasons given here in above

ITA 5250/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153A

…ount of incentive of sales tax paid and also of the amount of power incentive granted by the Government of West Bengal. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the AO relying upon the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Goetze India Limited 284 ITR 323. 7. The assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success. 8. Before us the Counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that since the search and seizure action was conducted on 14.11.2011 the assessment year A.Y .2007-08 becomes a non- abated assessment year, therefore, the same becomes nonest since nothing was found incrimi…

M/S. Jindal (India) Ltd., West Bengal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for the reasons given here in above

ITA 5249/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153A

…ount of incentive of sales tax paid and also of the amount of power incentive granted by the Government of West Bengal. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the AO relying upon the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Goetze India Limited 284 ITR 323. 7. The assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success. 8. Before us the Counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that since the search and seizure action was conducted on 14.11.2011 the assessment year A.Y .2007-08 becomes a non- abated assessment year, therefore, the same becomes nonest since nothing was found incrimi…

M/S. Jindal (India0 Ltd., West Bengal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for the reasons given here in above

ITA 5248/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153A

…ount of incentive of sales tax paid and also of the amount of power incentive granted by the Government of West Bengal. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the AO relying upon the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Goetze India Limited 284 ITR 323. 7. The assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success. 8. Before us the Counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that since the search and seizure action was conducted on 14.11.2011 the assessment year A.Y .2007-08 becomes a non- abated assessment year, therefore, the same becomes nonest since nothing was found incrimi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Globus Spirits Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1522/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…ence cannot take away from a party, the relief that he is entitled to. 20. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Smt. Raj Rani Gulati vs. CIT (2012) as reported in 249 CTR 51 (All.) observed in similar facts with reference to GOETZE (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) that the assessee was entitled to raise legal issue before First Appellate Authority which possessed co- terminus powers similar to the Assessing Officer. In that case, the assessee filed the return of income and inter alia declared Long Term Capital Gain taxable at 20% which was accepted by the I.T.A. No.2275/Del/2015 & 1522/Del/2014 11 As…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Globus Spirits Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2275/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…ence cannot take away from a party, the relief that he is entitled to. 20. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Smt. Raj Rani Gulati vs. CIT (2012) as reported in 249 CTR 51 (All.) observed in similar facts with reference to GOETZE (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) that the assessee was entitled to raise legal issue before First Appellate Authority which possessed co- terminus powers similar to the Assessing Officer. In that case, the assessee filed the return of income and inter alia declared Long Term Capital Gain taxable at 20% which was accepted by the I.T.A. No.2275/Del/2015 & 1522/Del/2014 11 As…

Bachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3, Thane

In the result with the above discussion Ground No-4 raised by the assessee is dismissed, as we don’t see any reason to interfere in the findings of Ld

ITA 890/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, 230, 2Nd Floor, Big Splash, Plot No. 78-79, Sec.Tor-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Adepp8750F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Cc- 3, Room No. 12, A-Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune-11 [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.01.2020 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 132Section 14ASection 250Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, 230, 2nd Floor, Big Splash, Plot No. 78-79, Sec.tor-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. PAN: ADEPP8750F ...... Appellant Vs. ACIT, CC- 3, Room No. 12, A-Wing, Ashar IT Park, 6th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 18/07/2022 Date of pronouncement : 14/10/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal…

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2056/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2056/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) M/s. Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd. Godrej One, 8th Floor, Pirojsha Nagar ……………. Appellant Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (East) Mumbai 400 079 PAN – AAECM2634B v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent Circle–7(2)(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/w Ms. Aastha Shah Revenue by : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha Date of Hearing – 19/07/2022 Date of Order – 14/10/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL,…

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2285/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…ted 23/12/2010 to the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings. 15.4. The AO disallowed the foregoing expenditure on the alleged ground that the claim cannot be admitted during the assessment proceedings following the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) (SC).The ld. CIT(A) directed ld. AO to consider the claim of the assessee and allow the same on proper verification of relevant vouchers, invoices, genuineness of services, payment and in accordance with the provisions of section 37 of the Act. 15.5. As it could be seen from the above that out of total payment of Rs.207,10,72,067/- paid by the…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2273/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

…ted 23/12/2010 to the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings. 15.4. The AO disallowed the foregoing expenditure on the alleged ground that the claim cannot be admitted during the assessment proceedings following the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) (SC).The ld. CIT(A) directed ld. AO to consider the claim of the assessee and allow the same on proper verification of relevant vouchers, invoices, genuineness of services, payment and in accordance with the provisions of section 37 of the Act. 15.5. As it could be seen from the above that out of total payment of Rs.207,10,72,067/- paid by the…

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, West Bengal vs. DCIT Central Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 188/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 188/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2007-08) Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017 Pan: Aaace-6607-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cen.Circle-1(4), 9Th Flor, Old Cgo Building, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sukanya Jayaram "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Abhijit Chaudhari सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/09/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms.Sukanya JayaramFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Chaudhari
Section 143(3)Section 244A(1)

…essee made the aforesaid claim during the course of assessment proceedings. In the return of income no claim was made by the assessee on this account. The Assessing Officer in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., 284 ITR 323 (SC) rejected assessee’s claim. The assessee was unsuccessful even before the CIT(A). The issue travelled to the Tribunal. The Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 20/05/2016 directed the Assessing Officer to accept assessee’s claim and reduce its total taxable income by Rs.5.79 crores. As a result of reduction in returned income refund…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…Officer further held that the assessee has not furnished details to substantiate whether such gain or loss is revenue or capital in nature. The Assessing Officer has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 58. The Ld.AR contended that as the revenue has held the loss in A.Y. 2009- 10 to be capital in nature and a consistent view should also be taken in case of gain in the impugned year. 32 ITA 1676/Mum/2015 ITA 1739/Mum/2015 59. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s case for A.Y. 2013-14 where the Assessing Officer…

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir -2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…Officer further held that the assessee has not furnished details to substantiate whether such gain or loss is revenue or capital in nature. The Assessing Officer has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 58. The Ld.AR contended that as the revenue has held the loss in A.Y. 2009- 10 to be capital in nature and a consistent view should also be taken in case of gain in the impugned year. 32 ITA 1676/Mum/2015 ITA 1739/Mum/2015 59. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s case for A.Y. 2013-14 where the Assessing Officer…

ACIT Cent. Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aym Syntex Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2550/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…held that the CIT(A) has a 85 (SC)], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the CIT(A) has a power coterminous with the Asses power coterminous with the Assessing Officer. Furthermore, in the sing Officer. Furthermore, in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not made in the the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not made in the the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not ma…

ACIT- CC -3, Mumbai vs. Aym Syntex Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2549/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…held that the CIT(A) has a 85 (SC)], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the CIT(A) has a power coterminous with the Asses power coterminous with the Assessing Officer. Furthermore, in the sing Officer. Furthermore, in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not made in the the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not made in the the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not ma…

Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2342/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…held that the CIT(A) has a 85 (SC)], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the CIT(A) has a power coterminous with the Asses power coterminous with the Assessing Officer. Furthermore, in the sing Officer. Furthermore, in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not made in the the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not made in the the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not ma…

M/S. Aym Syntex Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Cent Cir-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2341/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…held that the CIT(A) has a 85 (SC)], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the CIT(A) has a power coterminous with the Asses power coterminous with the Assessing Officer. Furthermore, in the sing Officer. Furthermore, in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not made in the the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not made in the the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not ma…

Aym Syntex Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 2340/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…held that the CIT(A) has a 85 (SC)], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the CIT(A) has a power coterminous with the Asses power coterminous with the Assessing Officer. Furthermore, in the sing Officer. Furthermore, in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not made in the the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not made in the the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not ma…