How many judgments cite Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT?

1,842 judgments on BharatTax cite Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 153A.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

284 ITR 323Supreme Court of India2006#13 most cited

What is Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

1,842

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Goetze (India) Ltd v CIT · new claim by assessee · additional ground · revised return of income · section 139(5) · Assessing Officer powers · CIT(A) powers · ITAT powers · assessment proceedings · fresh claim · 284 ITR 323

Also reported as

157 Taxmann 1204 CTR 182157 Taxmann.com 1

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 153A Section 143(1)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 139(5)book profits section 115j revenue expenditure section 115jb capital expenditure disallowance under section 14a section 32 section 254 section 37(1)transfer pricing adjustment liable to tax

Judgments citing Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1953/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

…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. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Hbl Power Systems Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1386/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…earned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and pleaded that their claim for warranty expenditure of Rs. 662.21 Lakhs may be considered in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) and also Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). 7. Ld. CIT(A) examined the working given for making the provision for warranty of Rs. 6,62,20,850/- and as a matter of fact, returned a finding that such working was consistently followed by the assessee for about ten years, and the assessee was earlier disallowing the…

The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Microwax Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2683/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 92E

…10B which the assessee came to discover during the course of assessment-proceeding. Therefore, in order to provide correct working of deduction u/s 10B, the assessee filed a Revised COI to Ld. AO. But the Ld. AO, relying upon Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), rejected such Revised COI on the ground that the assessee had not filed Page 45 of 51 ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. revised Return of Income. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had already claimed deduction u/s 10B in the Return of Income and the Revised COI was merely to supply rectified…

The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Microwax Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2682/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 92E

Bhaskar Chakraborty, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-70(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6212/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 6212/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Bhaskar Chakraborty, Acit बनाम I–1764, First Floor, Circle : 70 (1) C/O. Dipankar Chakraborty, New Delhi. Vs. C. R. Park, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan No. Aaapc0621K अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Zahid Parvez, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)

…d). 2. The Hon’ble CIT (A) has grossly erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in ignoring the following : (i) the Judicial precedents cited on non-applicability of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd, 284 ITR 323 for considering the revised computation during assessment proceedings; (ii) The order suffers from non-observance of the principles of natural justice as the legal issue of non-applicability of the decision in the case of Goetze basis the several decisions in favour of appellant was neither raised nor any clarification sought on the same; (iii) T…

Danfos Power Solutions India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2673/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2673/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(II)

…depreciation. 5. The department at this stage invited our attention to the Assessing Officer‟s assessment discussion that the assessee‟s claim could not even been entertained since not filed even in a revised return as per Goetze India Ltd. V/s. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). Suffice to say, that the CIT(A) has gone a step ahead of the assessment discussion in holding that although their lordships have made it clear that the appellate authorities‟ jurisdiction to entertain a new claim without a revised return has nowhere been impinged upon in any manner whatsoever. His findings in paras 10 onwards hold that the…

ACIT, Circle 41(1), New Delhi vs. Nimit Kumar Aneja, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7284/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7284/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Acit Nimit Kumar Aneja, Circle 41(1), Vs. Plot No. 12, Road No.26, New Delhi. East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. Pan No. Abnpa7305G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 32Section 32(1)Section 72

…016. However, since no depreciation has been claimed by the assessee in the original return of income benefit of revised WDV is not given to the assessee placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Limited vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). In other words the depreciation on the project Him Fresh Produce Company was not allowed for the current assessment year i.e. 2016-17. 3. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to compute the depreciation and allow the same to be carry forward as per provisions of the Act and against this order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The Ld.…

Gian Chand Arora, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1280/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Pcit Gian Chand Arora Room No.1001, 10Th Floor, 101, 48 Nri Complex, Seawoods Estates Road, Pratishtha Bhavan, Sector 58, Seawoods, Old Cgo Annexe, Vs. Navi Mumbai, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 706 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Abgpa 9809 G Assessee By : Shri Ashok Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54

…d not purchase any property for deduction under Section 54 of the Act. Gian Chand Arora; A.Y. 11-12 He further noted that any claim is required to be made only in the return of income as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 and therefore, the facts clearly shows that order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He further held that assessee in the instant case was even failed to show how the capital gain derived on sale of immovable property can be considered for taxation in two different hands. Fu…

Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sah. Patsanstha Ltd, Satara vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Satara

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1306/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1306/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Divyadatta Digamber Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. Nagari Sah. Patsanstha Ltd., Moti Heights, Azad Chowk, Koregaon, Satara- 415501. Pan : Aaeas1871L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Cit(A)-4, Pune’S Order Dated 24.06.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-4/Ward- 3, Satara/479/2017-18/188 Involving Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Rejecting Its Section 154 Rectification Filed On 26.07.2017 Thereby Disallowing Section 80P Deduction Claim Therein

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80A(5)Section 80P

…deduction u/s 80P. Therefore, the AO has rightly rejected the appellant's rectification application. The appellant's case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 wherein it is held that AO does not have a power to entertain additional claim, unless such a claim is made in the revised return filed within the due date for revised return. 6.3.3 The CBDT Circular No. 689 mentioned by the appellant in its ground of appeal is pertaining to processing under the erstwhile Section 143(1)(a) of the Act whereas the…

Kalpesh Nemichand Oswal, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 6 (5), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1808/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143(3)

…e submission made by the assessee and assess the income accordingly. 3. Mr. Desai vehemently argued that the lower authorities have been rightly rejected assessee’s claim since not filed by way of a revised return thereby violating Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). He fails to rebut the clinching fact that their lordships have made clear that the same nowhere impinges upon the appellate authorities decision vested under the provisions of the Act to entertain a new claim. Coupled with this, there is no adjudication on merits regarding the assessee’s 3 Kalpesh N. Oswal claim (supra) rejected herein.…

Mars Telecom Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 421/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Sanjay Mutha, CAFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Gautam, DR

Section 43

…Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd vs. CIT, 1991 AIR 241, 1990 SCR Supl.(1) 340 dated 5.9.1990. C) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (S.C) D) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (S.C) dated 24.3.2006 E) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Pruthvi Broker & Shareholders P Ltd in ITA No.3908 of 2010 dated 21/6/2012. F) Coordinate Bench of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Shri Thimmareddy Krishnareddy vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.2650/Bang/2019 dated 4.1.2021 G) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v…

Mr. Bhavnesh Rajendra Singhi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 242/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Bhavesh Rajendra Singhi C/O Income Tax Officer Sanket Shah, Ward 18(1)(2), Flat 1902, 19Th Floor, Vs. Matru Mandir Building, Olympia Tower A Wing, Grant Road, N.M. Joshi Marg, Byculla (West), Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aqops 9227 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Suyog Bhave, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Suyog Bhave, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

Section 139(5)Section 35ASection 80GSection 80G(1)(ii)Section 80G(2)Section 80G(5)(vi)

…d the claim of the assesseee. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not file revise return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also held that in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The Assessing Officer is not empowered to entertain claim of deduction otherwise than filing revised return of income by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of PCIT v. Paragon Biomedical India (P.) ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 227 (Ker) denied the claim of deduction u/s 80GGA observing…

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Associated Cement Co., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ave been remanded to the file of CIT(A), Additional Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is disposed off as being infructuous. However, before parting we would like to observe that judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT: 284 ITR 323 does not curtain the power of appellate authorities to entertain and accept a claim of assessee even if the same is not made by way of a revised return. 11. Ground No. 4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition in respect of expenditure on Jukehi Raod at Kymore of INR. 2,23,…

M/S. Acc Ltd ( Formely Known As the Associated Cememtn Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4895/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

M/S I G Petrochemical Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2310/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

For Appellant: Shri Parthasarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 14ASection 40

…d the materials available on record. In our opinion, the assessee could claim relief on certain issues before the appellate authorities, though there was no revised return filed by the assessee as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (284 ITR 323). Being so, the Ld. CIT(A) has to consider the claim of the assessee in accordance with law and decide it afresh. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 12. Next ground in relating to assessment year 2015-16 is with regard to disallowance of compounding charges paid amounting to Rs.2,69,54,863/-. Facts of the…

M/S I G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2309/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

For Appellant: Shri Parthasarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 14ASection 40

Axis Carriers & Logisticas Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

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

ITA 159/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh K. MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…o section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T. Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and not retrospective. For the above contentions, Ld. AR relied on following judicial pronouncements: - a. Goetze (India) Ltd., v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC)] b. CIT v. Hindusthan Organic Chemicals ltd., dated 11.07.2014 Hon'ble Bombay High Court. c. Salzgitter Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., v. ITO dated 15.06.2021 [ITAT Hyderabad Bench] d. Atul G. Puranic v. Income Tax Officer dated 13.05.2011 [ITAT Mumbai Bench] 4. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. Considered the riva…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Atul Auto Limited, Shapar.Veraval

The appeal is allowed

ITA 251/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80ISection 80J

…late ITA Nos.214&251/Rjt/2016 Atul Auto Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2012-13 authorities. This decision of the Supreme Court was interpreted by the Delhi High Court in Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.'s case (supra) as under (page 46): "In Goetze (India) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the deci…

Atul Auto Limited, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

The appeal is allowed

ITA 214/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80ISection 80J

Yeldi Softcom Private Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2608/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 264

…sed the return of income u/s-139(5) or filed a petition u/s 264 before the CIT. Instead, the assessee has resorted to get relief by way of filing an appeal before the CIT(A). Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) 284 ITR 323 wherein it was held that if the assessee commits any mistake, it can be rectified by filing revised return and no amendment can be done u/s 154. Therefore, relying on the Apex Court Decisions Supra appellant's ground "of appeal is found to be not sustainable, hence dismissed. In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” Aggrieved asses…