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 367,842 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

Ibrahim Moosa Peringady, Mumbai vs. ITO 21 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1534/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54

…| should have been allowed by the officer in view of circular no, 14 dated 11.4,1995". 3. However, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO in this regard by placing reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited Vs CIT (284 ITR 323). 4. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, I note that Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Limited (supra) had expounded that their decision in that case will not impinge upon the powers of ITAT to admit grounds otherwise than by revised return. Accordingly, I direct the AO to exami…

Cenduit (India) Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…e amounts paid by it as "cess". She submits that neither was any such claim made by filing any revised return before the Assessing Officer. She therefore relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) to submit that the Assessing Officer, was not only quite right in denying such a deduction, but further the Assessing Officer had no power or jurisdiction to grant such a deduction to the Appellant - Assessee. She submits that this is what precisely held by the ITAT in its impugned judgments and orders and therefore, the same, warrants no in…

Kalyani Steels Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

The appeal of the assesse is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1403/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kalyani Steels Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mundhwa, Vs. Income-Tax Circle-14, Pune – 411 036 Aaykarsadan, Bodhi Tower, 548/2B, Salisbury Park, Gultekdi, Pune – 411 037. Pan No. Aaack7315D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. M.G Jasnani, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…e amounts paid by it as “cess”. She submits that neither was any such claim made by filing any revised return before the Assessing Officer. She therefore relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) to submit that the Assessing Officer, was not only quite right in denying such a deduction, but further the Assessing Officer had no power or jurisdiction to grant such a deduction to the Appellant – Assessee. She submits that this is what precisely held by the ITAT in its impugned judgments and orders and therefore, the same, warrants no in…

Mr. Philips C Chacko, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 79/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Philips C Chacko, No. 301, Silver Springs Apts., The Income Tax Bohra Layout, Officer, Gottigere, B.G. Road, Ward 4 (3)(5), Bangalore – 560 083. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Acopc6162F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 20/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Cit-A Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Cit-A Erred In Holding That Consideration Received In Excess Of Consideration Recorded In Sale Deed As "Income From Other Sources". Ever After The Buyers Have Confirmed The Same Is Towards Sale Of Property. 3. The Cit —A Erred In Relying On Various Decisions For Holding Sale Consideration As Income From Other Sources Which Is Not Applicable To The Appellant'S Fact Of The Case.

For Appellant: None
Section 234ASection 54F

…appellate proceedings, irrespective of whether claim not being made before Ld.AO by Page 4 of 5 revising the return of income or during the course of the assessment proceedings. The decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 does not prohibit such claim before the appellate authorities. 6. We therefore remand both these issues to the Ld.AO to consider it afresh. The Ld.AO shall first decide the actual amount of sale consideration received by assessee based on the agreement entered into by the parties towards sale of property, followed by the claim under section 54F b…

Soundarya Decorators Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 335/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. V.S.Jayakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…of the authorities below. We find that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.513/Chny/2016 has considered an identical issue and by following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) held that restrictions on powers to consider a new claim made by the assessee was only on the Assessing Officer and not on the appellate authorities, hence, appellate authorities are empowered to consider fresh claim made by the assessee at any stage of proceedings, even if such claim was not made before the Assessing Officer. However, facts w…

Soundarya Decorators Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 334/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. V.S.Jayakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…of the authorities below. We find that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.513/Chny/2016 has considered an identical issue and by following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) held that restrictions on powers to consider a new claim made by the assessee was only on the Assessing Officer and not on the appellate authorities, hence, appellate authorities are empowered to consider fresh claim made by the assessee at any stage of proceedings, even if such claim was not made before the Assessing Officer. However, facts w…

ACIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Soundarya Decorators Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 302/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. V.S.Jayakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…of the authorities below. We find that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.513/Chny/2016 has considered an identical issue and by following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) held that restrictions on powers to consider a new claim made by the assessee was only on the Assessing Officer and not on the appellate authorities, hence, appellate authorities are empowered to consider fresh claim made by the assessee at any stage of proceedings, even if such claim was not made before the Assessing Officer. However, facts w…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 882/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…nses of Rs. 25,09,897/- in total, without appreciating the fact that said claim was not made before the AO by filing revised return as required under the law in terms of a ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC)(2006). 9. The Ld. AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that once expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business then the same needs to be allowed in the year in which such expenditure was incurred irrespective of method of accounting followed by the assessee, to a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 881/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…nses of Rs. 25,09,897/- in total, without appreciating the fact that said claim was not made before the AO by filing revised return as required under the law in terms of a ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC)(2006). 9. The Ld. AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that once expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business then the same needs to be allowed in the year in which such expenditure was incurred irrespective of method of accounting followed by the assessee, to a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 880/CHNY/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…nses of Rs. 25,09,897/- in total, without appreciating the fact that said claim was not made before the AO by filing revised return as required under the law in terms of a ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC)(2006). 9. The Ld. AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that once expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business then the same needs to be allowed in the year in which such expenditure was incurred irrespective of method of accounting followed by the assessee, to a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 879/CHNY/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…nses of Rs. 25,09,897/- in total, without appreciating the fact that said claim was not made before the AO by filing revised return as required under the law in terms of a ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC)(2006). 9. The Ld. AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that once expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business then the same needs to be allowed in the year in which such expenditure was incurred irrespective of method of accounting followed by the assessee, to a…

Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1259/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…nses of Rs. 25,09,897/- in total, without appreciating the fact that said claim was not made before the AO by filing revised return as required under the law in terms of a ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC)(2006). 9. The Ld. AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that once expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business then the same needs to be allowed in the year in which such expenditure was incurred irrespective of method of accounting followed by the assessee, to a…

Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1258/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…nses of Rs. 25,09,897/- in total, without appreciating the fact that said claim was not made before the AO by filing revised return as required under the law in terms of a ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC)(2006). 9. The Ld. AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that once expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business then the same needs to be allowed in the year in which such expenditure was incurred irrespective of method of accounting followed by the assessee, to a…

Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1257/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…nses of Rs. 25,09,897/- in total, without appreciating the fact that said claim was not made before the AO by filing revised return as required under the law in terms of a ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC)(2006). 9. The Ld. AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that once expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business then the same needs to be allowed in the year in which such expenditure was incurred irrespective of method of accounting followed by the assessee, to a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1256/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…nses of Rs. 25,09,897/- in total, without appreciating the fact that said claim was not made before the AO by filing revised return as required under the law in terms of a ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC)(2006). 9. The Ld. AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that once expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business then the same needs to be allowed in the year in which such expenditure was incurred irrespective of method of accounting followed by the assessee, to a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1255/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…nses of Rs. 25,09,897/- in total, without appreciating the fact that said claim was not made before the AO by filing revised return as required under the law in terms of a ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC)(2006). 9. The Ld. AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that once expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business then the same needs to be allowed in the year in which such expenditure was incurred irrespective of method of accounting followed by the assessee, to a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1254/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 28Section 37(1)

…nses of Rs. 25,09,897/- in total, without appreciating the fact that said claim was not made before the AO by filing revised return as required under the law in terms of a ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC)(2006). 9. The Ld. AR for the assessee on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that once expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business then the same needs to be allowed in the year in which such expenditure was incurred irrespective of method of accounting followed by the assessee, to a…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6620/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…lowing the claim of deduction. He submitted that when assessee had carried the matter before the DRP, the Hon’ble DRP did not consider the additional claim by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323. Aggrieved by the directions of DRP, assessee is now before us. 48. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and further submitted that AO has failed to appreciate that claim of assessee was a bonafide claim and was supported by necessary documentary evidences. Learned AR thereafter submitted that identi…

Faber Castell Aktiengesellschaft, Germany vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7619/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

…Act that allows it to file a fresh claim before the Assessing Officer, if it has not done so by filing a revised return of income within statutory time limit. Further reliance is place on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Cout in Goetze [India] Ltd Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323.” 10. The Assessing Officer finally concluded by holding that no business income has been computed under the Income-tax Act or DTAA in the assessee’s case, hence no deduction of any sort can be allowed. 11. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated what has been stated during the c…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Haryana

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 4185/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…efore the CIT(A) by filing application for admission of additional ground. Though the additional ground was admitted, the CIT(A), however, did not adjudicate the claim on merit relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) v. CIT: 284 ITR 323, observing that the issue does not arise out of the assessment order. 6. Ld. counsel submitted that the aforesaid action of the CIT (A) in not adjudicating and allowing the additional claim of the assessee is untenable and bad in law for the following reasons: 6.1 At the outset, he drew our attention to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the c…