Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

…lant had never made claim of reduction of sales tax incentive from Book Profit during original assessment or appellate proceedings. The claim has been raised for the first time during the reassessment proceedings u/s 153A. In the case of Goetze (I) Ltd vs CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that claims of deduction before AO can be allowed to be made by filing a revised return. The appellant had opportunity to do so during the original assessment proceedings. Even otherwise, a legal ground could have been raised before appellate authorities, which the appellant failed to exercise and a…

Patel & Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Patel & Associates, Dcit Cc-7(3), Office No. 1, 2Nd Floor, Patel Vs. Aayakarbhavan, Bhuvan, 29 Vijay Wad, Dr Mumbai-400020. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chirasazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aanfm 8145 P Appellant Respondent

…. 7.3.7. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd V. CIT [53 Taxman 85 (SC)], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the CIT(A) has a power coterminous with the Assessing Patel & Associates 9 Officer. Furthermore, in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the claim of deduction not made in the return cannot be entertained by the Assessing Officer otherwise than by filing a revised return. 7.3.8. In the case of the assessee, it is evident that the claim of recasting its profit and loss account made by the assessee is a fresh claim and not a revised…

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ICICI Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner of ICICI Bank Towers, Income-tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACI1195H Appellant by : Ms Arati Vissanji, AR Respondent by : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR Date of hearing: 13.01.2022 Date of pronouncement : 08.03.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by ICICI Bank Ltd (The appellant/ ass…

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

…nd revised standalone accounts and revised form 10CCB and 56F, in the course of the assessment proceedings. These claims were rejected by the Assessing Officer in the light of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s judgment in the case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT [(2006) 282 ITR 323 (SC)].Even in declining the claim, thus, the Assessing Officer had indicated that it was on account of limitations placed on him by the Goetze decision (supra), he could not have accepted the claim. There was no issue on the merits on the claim. In appeal before the CIT(A), learned CIT(A) accepted the claim and directed the Assessing Officer to r…

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

…nd revised standalone accounts and revised form 10CCB and 56F, in the course of the assessment proceedings. These claims were rejected by the Assessing Officer in the light of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s judgment in the case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT [(2006) 282 ITR 323 (SC)].Even in declining the claim, thus, the Assessing Officer had indicated that it was on account of limitations placed on him by the Goetze decision (supra), he could not have accepted the claim. There was no issue on the merits on the claim. In appeal before the CIT(A), learned CIT(A) accepted the claim and directed the Assessing Officer to r…

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

…nd revised standalone accounts and revised form 10CCB and 56F, in the course of the assessment proceedings. These claims were rejected by the Assessing Officer in the light of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s judgment in the case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT [(2006) 282 ITR 323 (SC)].Even in declining the claim, thus, the Assessing Officer had indicated that it was on account of limitations placed on him by the Goetze decision (supra), he could not have accepted the claim. There was no issue on the merits on the claim. In appeal before the CIT(A), learned CIT(A) accepted the claim and directed the Assessing Officer to r…

Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bharat Diamond Bourse, Dy. Cit (Exemption)-1, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb 2358 R Appellant Respondent

…framed an order allowing loss to the assessee, without basic verification / scrutiny of the facts on record. It is undisputed that the total, income disclosed by the assessee was NIL by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India)Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) that an additional claim cannot be made before the Assessing Officer, as there is no provisions under the Income Tax Act to make amendment/modification in the return income without filing a revised return within the time tallowed under Section 139 of the Act. In the present case the Assessing Other has modified the income of the assessee in…

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…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…