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 366,470 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

Ccl, Ranchi vs. ACIT Cir-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 166/RAN/2017[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.Κ.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 Per Bench : आदेश / Order These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017, 30.01.2019, 21.12.2023, 19.02.2024, 20.02.2024 & 30.01.2024 For The

For Appellant: Shri M.Κ.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

…ing before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee recognized its mistake and raised the claim. The Id. CIT(A) denied the assessee the claim because by applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). It was the submission that the allowability of the expenditure is not in dispute, the issue was on account of the non-claiming of the said expenditure in the return. It was the submission that in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., referred to supra, itself this Tribunal is can di…

Ccl, Ranchi vs. DCIT Cir-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 165/RAN/2017[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.Κ.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017, 30.01.2019, 21.12.2023, 19.02.2024, 20.02.2024 & 30.01.2024 For The

For Appellant: Shri M.Κ.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

…ing before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee recognized its mistake and raised the claim. The Id. CIT(A) denied the assessee the claim because by applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). It was the submission that the allowability of the expenditure is not in dispute, the issue was on account of the non-claiming of the said expenditure in the return. It was the submission that in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., referred to supra, itself this Tribunal is can di…

Ccl, Rnachi vs. Additional CIT, RG -1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 164/RAN/2017[06-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.172,173,174,175,176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

…ing before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee recognized its mistake and raised the claim. The ld. CIT(A) denied the assessee the claim because by applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited, reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). It was the submission that the allowability of the expenditure is not in dispute, the issue was on account of the non-claiming of the said expenditure in the return. It was the submission that in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., referred to supra, itself this Tribunal is can di…

M/S Sapphire Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 595/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarm/S. Sapphire Fintech Private Limited 6Th Floor-1, Plot 165, 161/169 Hirachand Fulchand Trust Building, Perin Nariman Street, Fort, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aahcs0312H V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3(3)(1), ……………… Respondent Room No.609, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Mumbai – 400020

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and facts in not allowing a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- inadvertently disallowed by the Appellant in the return of income without correctly appreciating that the rationale of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and facts in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing officer in not allowing set off of brought forward loss of Rs.20,27,918/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.35,956/- while assessing total income.” 3. Ground No.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to the disallowanc…

Vikas Jain, Kanpur vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 434/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 48Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2015-16 Vikas jain, vs. The ACIT, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 PAN: ABQPJ8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR Date of hearing: 07.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC on 17.05.2024 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assess…

JCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms SukanyaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

…sim Industries Ltd. 21. The AO rejected the claim stating that the claim is not made in the computation but through a note. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (284 ITR 323). The ld. AR argued that the primary ground for rejecting the claim of the assessee is that the assessee has made the claim by way of a note. The ld. AR further submitted that the contention of the CIT(A) that for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s. 80JJAA the new workman should have worked for at least 300 days and that the said provision sho…

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1056/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

…uction u/s 80JJAA." 21. The AO rejected the claim stating that the claim is not made in the computation but through a note. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (284 ITR 323). The ld. AR argued that the primary ground for rejecting the claim of the assessee is that the assessee has made the claim by way of a note. The ld. AR further submitted that the contention of the CIT(A) that for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s.80JJAA the new workman should have worked for at least 300 days and that the said provision shou…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Thomson Reuters India Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by revenue in IT(TP)

ITA 843/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)

…Court. The Ld.AR submitted that, the authorities below rejected the claim of assessee as it did not form part of the return of income. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 283 ITR 323 (SC), to support that, this Tribunal has discretion to entertain a fresh claim made by assessee even if such a claim was not made in the return of income or by way of a revised return. 14.1. On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that no details in respect of the claim was furnished by assessee and the Ld.AO could 54 I.T.A. No. 234/Bang/2015 I.T.…

Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

ITA 1518/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Manish Kumar Kanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 1Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…tuity expenses amounting to 200.41 crores. The additional claim of 200.41 crores made during assessment proceedings was not part of the original return of income, and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323), such fresh claims cannot be entertained by the Assessing Officer without a revised return." On the Issue of Provision of Software, Technical and Consultancy Services: 1.1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in directing the AO/TPO to restrict the adjustment made on account of Provision of Sof…

M/S.U.S.Reality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1959/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…g that the original audited financial statements filed with the return and the Registrar of Companies could not be disregarded, that revised statements filed beyond time without a valid revised return were not acceptable in view of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), and that the assessee failed to establish the nature and source of the credit. The credit was treated as an artificial inflation of equity and added as unexplained cash credit under section 68. 6. The Assessing Officer further found that the assessee had claimed liquidated damages of Rs.100,43,14,489/- in the Profit and Loss Account. The assess…

Kaithi Govardhan Reddy (HUF), Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1189/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1189/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Kaithi Govardhan Vs. Income Tax Officer Reddy ( Huf ) Ward 7 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aahhk3441C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Snsr Chinmai, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri SNSR Chinmai, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri T. Venkanna, Sr. DR

…r the immediately preceding two assessment years, and further, the assessee had not filed any revised return to support its plea of clerical mistake. The Ld. AO, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), rejected the claim of the assessee and passed the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 21.09.2022, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.45 lakhs. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by t…

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 81/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…AR submitted that despite the directions of the specific directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer has not granted the said deduction. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) only binds the ‘assessing authority’ but does not impinge upon the powers of the Appellate authorities such as Tribunal and DRP, to entertain new claims. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Wipro Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 443 ITR 250 (SC) ii) DCIT vs. Zydus Wellness Ltd. (2016) 76 taxmann.com 328 upheld by Hon…

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 80/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…AR submitted that despite the directions of the specific directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer has not granted the said deduction. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) only binds the ‘assessing authority’ but does not impinge upon the powers of the Appellate authorities such as Tribunal and DRP, to entertain new claims. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Wipro Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 443 ITR 250 (SC) ii) DCIT vs. Zydus Wellness Ltd. (2016) 76 taxmann.com 328 upheld by Hon…

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle(Int.Taxn.)-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 244/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…AR submitted that despite the directions of the specific directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer has not granted the said deduction. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) only binds the ‘assessing authority’ but does not impinge upon the powers of the Appellate authorities such as Tribunal and DRP, to entertain new claims. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Wipro Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 443 ITR 250 (SC) ii) DCIT vs. Zydus Wellness Ltd. (2016) 76 taxmann.com 328 upheld by Hon…

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5618/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

…precedents and the coordinate bench decisions, we hold that the assessee’s enhanced claim under section 80-IA merits examination on facts and should not have been rejected merely on procedural grounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323) has held that while the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a new claim without a revised return, appellate authorities are empowered to direct its consideration if it is otherwise admissible in law. Accordingly, the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s computation of the arm’s length value of steam tran…

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1449/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

…precedents and the coordinate bench decisions, we hold that the assessee’s enhanced claim under section 80-IA merits examination on facts and should not have been rejected merely on procedural grounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323) has held that while the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a new claim without a revised return, appellate authorities are empowered to direct its consideration if it is otherwise admissible in law. Accordingly, the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s computation of the arm’s length value of steam tran…

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1448/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

…precedents and the coordinate bench decisions, we hold that the assessee’s enhanced claim under section 80-IA merits examination on facts and should not have been rejected merely on procedural grounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323) has held that while the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a new claim without a revised return, appellate authorities are empowered to direct its consideration if it is otherwise admissible in law. Accordingly, the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s computation of the arm’s length value of steam tran…

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 4539/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…ey were of the view that the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed in the absence of revised return of income filed by the assessee and for the aforesaid conclusion, they relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 41. Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid amounts are in the nature of capital receipt and should have been excluded while computing the taxable income but however it had recognized it as Revenue receipt in the return of income. 42. Before us, Learned AR reiterated that proceeds from the transfer of CER and cancellation of contracts relating…

Srf Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 80/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…ey were of the view that the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed in the absence of revised return of income filed by the assessee and for the aforesaid conclusion, they relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 41. Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid amounts are in the nature of capital receipt and should have been excluded while computing the taxable income but however it had recognized it as Revenue receipt in the return of income. 42. Before us, Learned AR reiterated that proceeds from the transfer of CER and cancellation of contracts relating…

Satavahana University, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 1526/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1524/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1525/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1526/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: Satavahana University Vs. Ito आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 10Section 10(230)Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

…he appellant had neither filed return of income u/s 139(1) not 148. Therefore, exemption claimed by the appellant without filing the return of income is not correct. Reliance is placed the decision of Hon'ble SC in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 284 ITR 323. Therefore, action taken by the AO is confirmed and accordingly ground no. 2 raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 4.3 Ground no.4&5 - Addition made u/s 69 and 69A of the Act. 4.3.1 During the assessment proceedings, the appellant neither submitted any supporting documentary evidences with respect to the exemption claimed u/s 10 nor any do…