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 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

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

…n of Rs. 8,74,282/- as bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. However, learned DRP rejected the claim stating that new claim can be made only by way of filing revised return of income as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323). The Learned AR submitted that the claim put forth by the assessee is a genuine claim allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, he prayed that this claim of the assessee may be admitted by the Tribunal and the Assessing Officer may be directed to allow the same. 22. We heard learned Departmental Representative on this issue…

Vijaysingh J Jadhavrao, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(5), Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2245/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Vijaysingh Jaysingh The Income Tax Officer - 2(5) Jadhavrao Pmt Building Shivajinagar Vs. Swargate, Pune 411037 Jangali Maharaj Road Pune 411005 Pan – Aaqpj3021L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 29.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2012-13 Is Against The Cit(A)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 28.07.2017 Passed In Case No. Cit (A), Pune-3/10424/2015-16 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act).

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…of the assessment order the Assessing Officer though has mentioned that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act cannot be allowed in view of the judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. [2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC)/[2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it is held that the claim made by the assessee otherwise than by filing a revised return is not allowable, however the Assessing Officer has 4 Shri Vijaysingh Jaysingh Jadhavrao proceeded to the examine the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) on merits in detail and has held that the assessee could not establish that the conditions laid…

ITO, Ncw - I (4), Chennai vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 577/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…could not confirm for hearing of the issue raised before the appellate authority. 6.3 Moreover, in the grounds of appeal at ground No. 7, the Revenue has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) for the preposition that the assessee cannot amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it clear to restrict to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise by a revised return and further held that the decis…

ITO, Ncw - I (4), Chennai vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 576/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…could not confirm for hearing of the issue raised before the appellate authority. 6.3 Moreover, in the grounds of appeal at ground No. 7, the Revenue has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) for the preposition that the assessee cannot amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it clear to restrict to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise by a revised return and further held that the decis…

Joint CIT (OSD) Cent Cir. 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2155/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 1996-97
Section 143(3)

…ed from the cost of assets as per Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. d) Claim of exemption from tax was not made in the return of income and cannot be allowed following the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). 3.7. Proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) in the second round of proceedings: The ld. CIT(A) also again verified all the documentary evidences filed by the assessee regarding various incentive /subsidy schemes as detailed supra. The ld. CIT(A) at Para 3.3 of his order, negated the observation of the ld. AO that M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd., cl…

Sanjay Bhavanji Rambhia, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1780/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjay Bhavanji Rambhia, Vs. Ito-Circle 16(3)(1) A-301, Platinum The Residence, Mumbai 400020 Tejpal Scheme Road No.5, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai 400057 Appellant. Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay BiyaniFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Shrote
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80G

…granted an opportunity before the assessing officer to canvass the appeal properly. 6. Upon careful consideration I note that the assessing officer has rejected the assessee's claim referring to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR 323. 7. In the said decision Hon’ble Supreme Court itself has held that their aforesaid order will not impinge on the ITATs, power to admit grounds otherwise than by revised return. Furthermore I note that Ld. CIT(A) has referred that the donee’s approval had expired by the time the donation was made by the assessee. If this fact is correct assessee’…

Mailanchikkal Abdul Muneem, Chennai vs. ITO International Taxation 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2627/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2627/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 & धनकर अपील सं/ Wta Nos.: 61/Chny/2017 & 75/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri Mailanchikkal Abdul The Income Tax Officer / Muneem, V. The Wealth Tax Officer, Ff-1, 48, Chander Plaza Arcot International Taxation Ward Road, Saligramam, 1(2), Chennai – 600 093. Chennai. Pan: Aalpm 4410F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 16(3)Section 2(14)Section 54F

…aking a fresh claim is not maintainable on the ground that assessee can make any fresh claim only by way of revising the original return and not otherwise. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Apex Court in the case of Mk/s. Goetze India vs. CIT (284 ITR 323-C), wherein it was held that as under: “Whether an assessee can amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return – Held no” Therefore, in the absence of any revised return, the alternate claim, which is an after-thought, cannot be entertained and hence it is rejected. Therefore, for the purpose o…

M/S Opto Cardiac Care Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1046/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Shivaprasad Reddy &For Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik
Section 10ASection 40

…he A.O in both the years. However, the A.O. rejected the claim holding that the assessee can make fresh claim only by filing return of income. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd (284 ITR 323). The A.O. also observed that the assessee has not filed Form No.56F before him in both the years. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the rejection of claim for deduction u/s 10AA of the Act in both the years. 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee did not file Form No.56F in these two years since it did not claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act in vie…

M/S Opto Cardiac Care Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1045/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Shivaprasad Reddy &For Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik
Section 10ASection 40

…he A.O in both the years. However, the A.O. rejected the claim holding that the assessee can make fresh claim only by filing return of income. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd (284 ITR 323). The A.O. also observed that the assessee has not filed Form No.56F before him in both the years. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the rejection of claim for deduction u/s 10AA of the Act in both the years. 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee did not file Form No.56F in these two years since it did not claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act in vie…

M/S Resoive & Fire India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 201Section 206C(7)Section 215Section 220(2)

…1 ITA 841/Mum/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A No.841 /Mum/2019 (Assessment year : 2015-16) M/s Resolve Salvage & Fire India vs DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai Private Limited , 41/42, 4th Floor Kalpataru Court Co-op Soc. Ltd Dr.C.G. Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400 074 PAN : AAFCR9586E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Devendra Jain Department represented by Shri T. Sankar, Sr.Ar. CIT Date of hearing 10/02/2022 Date of pronouncement 18/04/2022 O R D E R Per: S.Rifaur Rahman (A…

Comm of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata vs. St John Diocesan Girls Higher Secondary School

In the result, the connected application for stay IA

ITAT/408/2017HC Calcutta12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 260A

…d Commissioner, over and above exemption allowed during assessment under the said section in accordance with the claim made in the Return by the assessee, disregarding the decision of the Hon’ble 3 Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze India vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] ?” We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, learned Advocate for the respondent/assessee. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tax effect involved in this appeal is Rs.37,08,509/-. If that be so, the revenue cannot pursue this appeal on the ground of low tax…

Wipro Finance Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed

C.A. No.-006677-006677 - 2008Supreme Court12 Apr 2022
Section 143(1)(a)Section 254Section 37Section 43A

…is of no avail to the department. 12. Learned counsel for the department had also relied on the decision of this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara vs. Elecon Engineering Company Limited13. This 10 [2006] 284 ITR 323 11 supra at footnote No. 4 12 supra at footnote No. 10 13 (2010) 4 SCC 482 11 decision is on the question of application of Section 43A of the 1961 Act. Accordingly, the exposition in this decision will be of no avail to the fact situation of the present case. For, we have already noticed that the appellant had not acquired any…

ACIT, Circle- 9(2), New Delhi vs. Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, C.O is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2371/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…of the Act has been rejected on the ground that, the said claim is an additional claim. The said order of the AO rejecting the claim u/s 80IC of the Act has been affirmed by the CIT(A) by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India (284 ITR 323). 13. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act and the deduction ought to have been made u/s 80IC of the Act, both the AO and the CIT(A) have not appreciated the fact that the claim made by the assessee is not an additional claim and the assessee has duly reported the amount of de…

Chandrakant Laxman Jadhav, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 1202/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1202/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Chandrakant Laxman Jadhav, The A.C.I.T., A/P Mahalunge, Chakan Talegaon Vs Circle-10, Road, Tal, Khed, Pune-410501. Pune. Pan No. Acjpj 0442 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 54

…s 139(1) claiming such deduction. Also no Return of Income was filed in response to notice u/s 148 within 30 days. The ROI filed on 19/03/2014 is not revised return. Hence relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (284 ITR 323) no deduction against this investment is allowed. 6) Residential Mr. - No document such as house at, Post: Chandrakant commencement Malunge Ingle Laxman Jadhav certificate, completion certificate, copy of plan, copy of purchase bills in respect of construction material purchased etc. is filed. The assessee has not filed ROI u/s 139(1) claiming su…

Shri Ritum Jain, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 466/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ritum Jain Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata 4A, Metro Towers, 1, Ho Chi Vs. Minh Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071. Pan: Actpj 4441 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.09.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Rejecting The Assessee’S Rectification Petition Filed U/S 154 Claiming The Subsidy Received By The Assessee As Industrial Promotion Assistance (Ipa) From The State Govt, Under West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance To Industrial Units) Scheme, As Capital Receipt In Place Of Revenue Receipt. The Claim Of The Assessee Was Rejected By The Ld. Ao As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) On The Ground That The Same Cannot Be Claimed By The Assessee In The Rectification Petition U/S 154 Since The Same Was Not Claimed In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee In View Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In Case Of Goetze India Ltd. Vs Cit In 157 Taxman 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Consider The Fact That The Assessee’S Case Is Squarely Covered By Judicial Decisions On Similar Facts In The Case Of Sharda Cropchem Ltd. Vs Dcit In 71 Itr (Trib) 141 & Dcit & Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills In 130/Asr/2014. Therefore, The Action Of 2 Shri Ritum Jain A.Y. 2014-15 The Ld. Cit(A) In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee Is Unjustified & The Claim Needs To Be Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR
Section 139(5)Section 153ASection 154Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH “B”, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ritum Jain DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata 4A, Metro Towers, 1, Ho Chi Vs. Minh Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071. PAN: ACTPJ 4441 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, AR Respondent by : Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR Date of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.09.2021 of the…

Kalpana Mahesh Vora(Legal Heir of Deceased Shri Mahesh A. Vora), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1189/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1189/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Kalpana Mahesh Vora, I.T.O., Legal Heir Of Deceased Vs. Ward-3(1)(3), Shri Mahesh A. Vora, Ahmedabad. (Pan: Aaupv5856H) B-101, Abhiyan Appt., Nr. Devikananadan Derasar, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380006. (Applicant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 55(2)(b)

…t, therefore, the grievance of appellant is unfound. The appellant's argument that the A.O should have considered the valuation report dated 20/1/2016 for cost of acquisition is not tenable as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323/157 Taxman 1, has clearly held that A.O cannot entertain any claim otherwise than filing revised return. The valuer in the valuation report, value as on 1/4/81 has noted that the rate of ready reckoner was not in force as on 1/4/81 hence it is not proper to compare the rate of sale deed with rate as on 1/4/81. The valuer has also mentioned that i…

Lions Umra Piplod Education Society, Surat vs. A.O. Circle-2, Exeption, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 197/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing In Virtual Court) Lions Umra Piplod Education Society, The Assessing Officer, Opp. Lake View Garden, C/O. Circle-2, Exemption, Vs. Shardayatan School, Piplod, Surat- Ahmedabad. 395007, Gujarat. Pan : Aaatl1289Q Appellant Respondednt

Section 10Section 10(23)(vi)Section 11Section 143(1)

…e of CIT vs Mitesh Impex 11 ITA No. 197/SRT/2021/AY.2017-18 Lions Umra Piplod Education Society (2014) 270 CTR 66 (Guj.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court by referring various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court including in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), Jute Corporation of India 187 ITR 688 (SC), wherein it was held that the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and consider the additional claim and not mere additional legal submission. Such claim need not to be those which becomes available on account of change of circumstances of law but which were even available when…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Rain Cements Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly. This Revenue’s cross appeal ITA 1773/Hyd/2019 is partly allowed in foregoing terms

ITA 1773/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09 Rain Cements Limited, Vs The Deputy Commissioner (Earlier Known As Rain Cii Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Carbon (India) Limited), 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcr8858F. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner Rain Cements Limited, Of Income Tax (Appeals) – (Earlier Known As Rain Cii 3(1), Hyderabad. Carbon (India) Limited), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcr8858F. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri Nishant Thakkar Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 47

…ration on merits. We make it itself as per the various provisions enshrined therein. 4. The Revenue next vehemently contended that the assessee ought to have filed its revised return before the Assessing Officer in light Goetze (India) Limited Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). We find that their lordships’ detailed decision has nowhere impinged upon the appellate jurisdiction in the Act to admit a fresh plea in the given facts and circumstances. We therefore direct the CIT(A) to decide the assessee’s loss claim afresh for the purpose of section 115JB of MAT computation as per law. Ordered accordingly. This assess…

Rain Cements Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly. This Revenue’s cross appeal ITA 1773/Hyd/2019 is partly allowed in foregoing terms

ITA 1745/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09 Rain Cements Limited, Vs The Deputy Commissioner (Earlier Known As Rain Cii Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Carbon (India) Limited), 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcr8858F. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner Rain Cements Limited, Of Income Tax (Appeals) – (Earlier Known As Rain Cii 3(1), Hyderabad. Carbon (India) Limited), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcr8858F. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri Nishant Thakkar Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 47

…ration on merits. We make it itself as per the various provisions enshrined therein. 4. The Revenue next vehemently contended that the assessee ought to have filed its revised return before the Assessing Officer in light Goetze (India) Limited Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). We find that their lordships’ detailed decision has nowhere impinged upon the appellate jurisdiction in the Act to admit a fresh plea in the given facts and circumstances. We therefore direct the CIT(A) to decide the assessee’s loss claim afresh for the purpose of section 115JB of MAT computation as per law. Ordered accordingly. This assess…

Asst. CIT 9 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Future Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6529/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…1 ITA No.6529/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 ACIT, Circle 9(3)(2) Vs. M/s Future Enterprises Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s Future Enterprises of Income Tax, Circle limited, Ground Floor, 9(3)(2), Room No. 418, Knowledge House, Off 4th Floor, Aayakar Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Shyam Nagar, Mumbai – 400020 Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai 400060 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACP6317L Respondent .. Appellant Appellant by : Dinkle Hariya Respondent by…