Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

Dy.CIT-8(3), Mumbai vs. Sitel India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1777/Mum./2012 (Assessment Year : 2007–08) Sitel India Ltd. 4A, Parke Davis Complex ……………. Appellant Saklnaka, Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai 400 072 PAN – AAFCS1297M v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–8(3), Mumbai …………….Respondent ITA No.1426/Mum./2012 (Assessment Year : 2007–08) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–8(3), Mumbai v/s Sitel India Ltd. 4A, Parke Davis Complex Saklnaka, Andheri Kurla Road ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 072 PAN…

Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (3)(5), Mumbai

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Tanveer Ahmed Ansari Vs. ITO 26(3)(5) Room No.2, 1st Floor Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan C/11, 5th Floor National Manzil 85, Pipe Road Bandra Kurla Complex Kurla (W) Bandra East Mumbai – 400 070 Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No.AHUPA1201A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jayant Bhatt Revenue by Shri Rajendra Chandekar Date of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement 14/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.6057/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2011-12…

Sujan Azad Parikh, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesujan Azad Parikh V. Dcit – 7(1) C-701, Beaumonde Tower Room No. 653, 6Th Floor Appasaheb Marathe Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Prabhadevi, Mumbai -400025 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaepp9028R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hariom Tulsiyan Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

…income and had voluntarily declared the receipt on sale of shares as long-term capital gains in his return of income. Further reliance has been placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 284 ITR 323 (SC) (2006) wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing of a revised return. 10. The appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the aforesaid order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3).r.w.s. 254 of the Act. Before the Ld.CIT(A) the appellant had filed the Peti…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…gs, the assessee claimed the said amount of Rs. 2,18,09,383 to be allowed. The Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act rejected the request of the assessee in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT: 284 ITR 323. Tata Chemicals Ltd. A.Y. 2004–05 & 2005–06 26. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue, by observing as under: ―15.3 I have considered the facts of the issue and the submissions made by the AR. It is noted that as per the lease agreement, the deposit was not required to be amortise…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…gs, the assessee claimed the said amount of Rs. 2,18,09,383 to be allowed. The Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act rejected the request of the assessee in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT: 284 ITR 323. Tata Chemicals Ltd. A.Y. 2004–05 & 2005–06 26. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue, by observing as under: ―15.3 I have considered the facts of the issue and the submissions made by the AR. It is noted that as per the lease agreement, the deposit was not required to be amortise…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…gs, the assessee claimed the said amount of Rs. 2,18,09,383 to be allowed. The Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act rejected the request of the assessee in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT: 284 ITR 323. Tata Chemicals Ltd. A.Y. 2004–05 & 2005–06 26. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue, by observing as under: ―15.3 I have considered the facts of the issue and the submissions made by the AR. It is noted that as per the lease agreement, the deposit was not required to be amortise…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…gs, the assessee claimed the said amount of Rs. 2,18,09,383 to be allowed. The Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act rejected the request of the assessee in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT: 284 ITR 323. Tata Chemicals Ltd. A.Y. 2004–05 & 2005–06 26. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue, by observing as under: ―15.3 I have considered the facts of the issue and the submissions made by the AR. It is noted that as per the lease agreement, the deposit was not required to be amortise…

Tata International Ltd ( for Erstwhile Bachi Shoes Ltd), Vellore vs. ACIT Circle 1, Vellore

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Tata International Limited V. Acit – Circle – 1 {Erstwhile Bachi Shoes Ltd} No.2, 2Nd Floor No. 147, Sidco Industrial Estate Central Revenue Building Sipcot, Ranipet – 632403 Barracks Cross Street Officers Line, Vellore -632001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aastha Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–13, Chennai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.03.2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal: - “The Appellant Objects To The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)'S Order Dismissing The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, For 2013-14 Aly I) Omitting To Reduce The Adjustments Of Rs. 5,69,560 U/S 145A As Per Letter Dated 25.2.2016;

…27,79,597 under the 3rd Proviso to Sec.32(1)(iia) AND failing to appreciate that it is not a separate claim. 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that none of the above are fresh claims for "Deductions", contemplated in the decision in Goetze (India) Itd vs CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) 6 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, being an Appellate authority, the decision in Goetze (India) Itd. case would not apply to him and he was duty bound to consider the claim raised before him as decided by the Apex Court and Madras High Court. 7. The CIT(A) ought to have followed the binding decisions of the Madras High Court directly on…

DCIT (It) -4(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

…i.e. the year under consideration), the assessee should not be unjustly taxed on a receipt which is otherwise not chargeable to tax both as per the Act and as per the treaty. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 had held that any claim of the assessee could be made only by way of a valid return. In the instant case, the assessee could not file a revised return within the time prescribed under the Act. It is a fact that assessee had offered the income while filing its return for A.Y.2014-15. Thereafter, during the course of assessment proceedings, in view…

DCIT (It) -4 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

…i.e. the year under consideration), the assessee should not be unjustly taxed on a receipt which is otherwise not chargeable to tax both as per the Act and as per the treaty. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 had held that any claim of the assessee could be made only by way of a valid return. In the instant case, the assessee could not file a revised return within the time prescribed under the Act. It is a fact that assessee had offered the income while filing its return for A.Y.2014-15. Thereafter, during the course of assessment proceedings, in view…

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

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

…i.e. the year under consideration), the assessee should not be unjustly taxed on a receipt which is otherwise not chargeable to tax both as per the Act and as per the treaty. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 had held that any claim of the assessee could be made only by way of a valid return. In the instant case, the assessee could not file a revised return within the time prescribed under the Act. It is a fact that assessee had offered the income while filing its return for A.Y.2014-15. Thereafter, during the course of assessment proceedings, in view…

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

…ry forward of long term capital loss of Rs.188 Crores on the ground that the same was not claimed in the return of income by the assessee and hence, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323, the assessee is not entitled for carry forward of the same. The assessee however, succeeded on this issue before the ld. CIT(A) who by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., reported in 349 ITR 336 and also by placing reliance on the decision of…

Dy CIT Dd-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

…ry forward of long term capital loss of Rs.188 Crores on the ground that the same was not claimed in the return of income by the assessee and hence, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323, the assessee is not entitled for carry forward of the same. The assessee however, succeeded on this issue before the ld. CIT(A) who by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., reported in 349 ITR 336 and also by placing reliance on the decision of…

Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Ciecle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

…ry forward of long term capital loss of Rs.188 Crores on the ground that the same was not claimed in the return of income by the assessee and hence, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323, the assessee is not entitled for carry forward of the same. The assessee however, succeeded on this issue before the ld. CIT(A) who by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., reported in 349 ITR 336 and also by placing reliance on the decision of…