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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2732/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2
Section 250Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. FMC India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner of Embassy Star 1st Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAACF4579N APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2 Date of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present cross appeal…

M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2611/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2
Section 250Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. FMC India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner of Embassy Star 1st Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAACF4579N APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2 Date of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present cross appeal…

Smt. Chandrikaben Thakarshibhai Langhnoja, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward- 2 (2) (3), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 135/RJT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154

…iled an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has not filed Revised Return of Income within the time limit. Relying upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) the assessee’s case do not fall under section 154 and therefore confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us with the delay of 118 days in filing the above appeal. 5.1 Registry has noted that there is a delay of 118 days in filing…

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

…epted since appellant has not filed revised return for such claim. b) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that 5 ITA NO. 803 & 850/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 1999-2000) Standard Chartered Bank  The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. v CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) can be applied only when the claim for deduction was made first time during the course of assessment.  In the present case, the Appellant had already claimed deduction for Head Office Expenditure in the Return of Income, but the same was restricted u/s 44C  The said was revised during the course of appellant proceeding in view of the decis…

Anita Jayant Oswal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 769/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.769/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anita Jayant Oswal, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Banglow No.1, Kumar Elite, Lane No.4, 110, Koregaon Park, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaapo3272A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Naresh Kumar : Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2018 For The Assessment Years 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Respectfully Submits That The Appellant May Please Be Allowed To Take The Following Grounds Of Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-13, Pune In Appeal No Cit(A)-13/16-17/593 Dated 15/02/2018 For A.Y. 2014-15. (1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld Ao In Rejecting The Claim Of Rs 31,79,890 Out Of The Total Claim Of Rs 1,24,71,110 Made U/S 54F Of The It Act-1961. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Or All Of The Above Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 54Section 54F

…ch is exempt u/s 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer had denied the exemption u/s 54 on the ground that the same was not claimed in the 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). 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) held that the claim for exemption u/s 54 can be entertained at the stage of appeal following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the 3 case of CIT v. Prithvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd., 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) considering the fact that the appellant had purchased two flats in…

DCIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi vs. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 183/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 801BSection 92C

…of excise duty on capital subsidy and claim of expenses on stock option scheme on the reasoning that the same was not claimed by filing revised return of income and referring to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323. 46. We note that ITAT in assessee’s own case for AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10 had admitted the claim and remanded the matter to the file of AO for adjudication. Moreover, in Goetze India Ltd. case itself, the Hon’ble Apex Court has expounded that decision in that case would not 33 ITA No.7154 /Del./2017 ITA No.7253/Del./2017 ITA No.7431 /Del./2017 ITA…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7431/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 801BSection 92C

…of excise duty on capital subsidy and claim of expenses on stock option scheme on the reasoning that the same was not claimed by filing revised return of income and referring to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323. 46. We note that ITAT in assessee’s own case for AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10 had admitted the claim and remanded the matter to the file of AO for adjudication. Moreover, in Goetze India Ltd. case itself, the Hon’ble Apex Court has expounded that decision in that case would not 33 ITA No.7154 /Del./2017 ITA No.7253/Del./2017 ITA No.7431 /Del./2017 ITA…

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7253/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 801BSection 92C

…of excise duty on capital subsidy and claim of expenses on stock option scheme on the reasoning that the same was not claimed by filing revised return of income and referring to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323. 46. We note that ITAT in assessee’s own case for AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10 had admitted the claim and remanded the matter to the file of AO for adjudication. Moreover, in Goetze India Ltd. case itself, the Hon’ble Apex Court has expounded that decision in that case would not 33 ITA No.7154 /Del./2017 ITA No.7253/Del./2017 ITA No.7431 /Del./2017 ITA…

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 7(1), New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7154/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 801BSection 92C

…of excise duty on capital subsidy and claim of expenses on stock option scheme on the reasoning that the same was not claimed by filing revised return of income and referring to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323. 46. We note that ITAT in assessee’s own case for AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10 had admitted the claim and remanded the matter to the file of AO for adjudication. Moreover, in Goetze India Ltd. case itself, the Hon’ble Apex Court has expounded that decision in that case would not 33 ITA No.7154 /Del./2017 ITA No.7253/Del./2017 ITA No.7431 /Del./2017 ITA…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no order as

ITA/120/2018HC Calcutta14 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 14, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. R.K. Murarka, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.D. Verma, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The `Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8Th March, 2017 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In I.T.A. No. 883 & 1018/Kol/2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. The Appeal Was Admitted To Decide The Following Substantial Question Of Law:-

Section 115Section 115JSection 2(24)Section 260A

…capital receipts instead of revenue receipts as claimed in original return. The Assessing Officer had denied this claim. The Revenue has attacked the order of the Tribunal by relying on the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). This case does not help the Revenue/appellant. In this case the Supreme Court has made it clear that its decision was restricted to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1…

Principal Comm of Income Tax 4, Kolkata vs. M/S Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt Ltd

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no order as

ITA/17/2021HC Calcutta14 Sept 2022

Bench: :

Section 115Section 115JSection 2(24)Section 260A

…tal receipts instead of revenue receipts as claimed in original return. The Assessing Officer had denied this claim. The Revenue has attacked the order of the Tribunal by relying on the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). This case does not help the Revenue/appellant. In this case the Supreme Court has made it clear that its decision was restricted to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-ta…

Principal Comm of Income Tax 4, Kolkata vs. M/S Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt Ltd

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no order as

ITA/18/2021HC Calcutta14 Sept 2022

Bench: :

Section 115Section 115JSection 2(24)Section 260A

…tal receipts instead of revenue receipts as claimed in original return. The Assessing Officer had denied this claim. The Revenue has attacked the order of the Tribunal by relying on the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). This case does not help the Revenue/appellant. In this case the Supreme Court has made it clear that its decision was restricted to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-ta…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S. Ggc Constructions Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA/325/2022HC Delhi13 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 139(5)Section 154

…39(5) of the Act. He states that the AO had rightly disallowed the business losses, since the Assessee failed to file a revised return claiming the loss, by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 223 (SC). 3. He states that ITAT erred in partly upholding the CIT(A)’s order deleting the addition of Rs. 4,33,89,909, which was made by the AO on the presumption that the sundry creditors of the said amount as reflected in the balance sheet represent bogus expenses. He states that the AO rightly disallowed the said amount on the basis of the enquir…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S. Ggc Constructions Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA - 325 / 2022HC Delhi13 Sept 2022
Section 139(5)Section 154

…39(5) of the Act. He states that the AO had rightly disallowed the business losses, since the Assessee failed to file a revised return claiming the loss, by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 223 (SC). 3. He states that ITAT erred in partly upholding the CIT(A)’s order deleting the addition of Rs. 4,33,89,909, which was made by the AO on the presumption that the sundry creditors of the said amount as reflected in the balance sheet represent bogus expenses. He states that the AO rightly disallowed the said amount on the basis of the enquir…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. M/S Orient Paper and Industries Ltd

ITAT/164/2022HC Calcutta12 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 12, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. …For Respondent Ga/1/2022 The Court :- Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 202 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & We Find That Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Being Able To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

Section 260

…could be admitted by the CIT(A), though not raised before the assessing officer by filing the revised return was rightly considered by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee by taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CITA in 284 ITR 323 (SC). This Court in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 1, KOLKATA Vs. M/S. BIP DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. in ITAT/165/2021 dated February 10, 2022 has taken a similar view and also the decisions of this Court in the case PCIT VS. EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. in ITAT 96 of 2018 dated 4th January, 2022 and also the decision in COMMISSIONER O…

Crayons Advertising (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-6(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7491/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 10(38)Section 234BSection 28Section 36Section 56(2)(vii)

…peals) has failed to appreciate that the claim not allowed in the assessment proceedings could be allowed during the appellate proceedings and in such circumstances, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 have no application. 1.3. That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court has no reference to CIT(A) and therefore, addition claim cannot be entertained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is based on fundamental misconception of facts and law and wholly unsustainable. 2. That t…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Goyal Engineering Polymer (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 24

ITA 5023/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…claimed in the original return of income or by way of revised return of income and accordingly the claim made during the assessment proceedings was not in line with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Toetze India Limited vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC)? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.2,74,42,000/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in restricting the addition of Rs.42,88,787/- made on account of disallowance of 4 I.T.A.No.5023/D…

DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Citi Bank Overseas Investment Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 321/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

…circumstance of the case and in law, even if the Hon'ble ITAT allows the receipt as "capital gain", then also no set off of carry forward loss can be allowed as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. us CIT, reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) (2006) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the assessee cannot make new claim otherwise than by filing a revised return." 3. So far as the first and second grounds of appeal is concerned, it is sufficient to take note of the fact that the learned CIT(A) has granted the impugned relief on the short ground that the same issue was decided…

Addl. CIT, Spl Rnage-7, New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2379/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…interest on an item of expenditure. At best it is an expense that has to be 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…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 158/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…interest on an item of expenditure. At best it is an expense that has to be 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…