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

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

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

ITA 4067/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…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Hisar

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

ITA 2280/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

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…

ACIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

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

ITA 2230/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

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…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Hisar

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

ITA 413/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

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…

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

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

ITA 341/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

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…

ACIT, Hisar vs. M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

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

ITA 220/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

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…

Jindal Steel & Power Limited vs. Addl. CIT

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

ITA 167/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2003-04

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…

ACIT, Circle-31(1), New Delhi vs. Kanidi Cosmeceuticals, New Delhi

In the result all the grounds raised by the ld AO are dismissed and the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed

ITA 4192/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, /Vs. Kanidi Cosmeceuticals, Circle-31(1), 191, Carripa Marg, Sainik Farm, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaifk2611H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 80I

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ACIT, /Vs. Kanidi Cosmeceuticals, Circle-31(1), 191, Carripa Marg, Sainik Farm, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAIFK2611H (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR Assessee by: None Date of Hearing 20/10/2021 Date of pronouncement 17/11/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the ld AO/ ACIT, Circle-31(1), New Delhi against the order of the ld CIT(A)-11, New Delhi dated 21.04.2017 for the Asse…

Giriraj Kishan Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6481/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2021AY 2009-10
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 147Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

…le Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 619) is applicable. Authorities below have erred in not considering the same. 8. As regards additional ground raised by the assessee I note that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323, has held that their order in that case would not impinge upon the powers of the ITAT to admit claim otherwise than by revised return. Accordingly in the interest of justice, I remit all the issues raised to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall consider them afresh, keeping in mind the observation hereinabove. Needless t…

Indu Bansal, Kolkata vs. CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 340/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-(Kz)] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. No. 340/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Indu Bansal.........................................................................................................................Appellant 240B, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020. [Pan: Adjpb 1715 F] Vs Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre..................………………………………………....Respondent Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue: Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 08, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 08, 2021 Order

For Respondent: Date of concluding the hearing : November 08, 2021
Section 143(1)Section 80C

…ot find merit in the submission made by the assessee. According to him, there was no deduction claimed by the assessee under Chapter VI-A in the return of income and by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT 284 ITR 323, he held that the claim of deduction not made in the return cannot be entertained by the Assessing Officer otherwise than by filing a revised return. He accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide an appellate order dated 05.03.2021 which is impugned by the assessee in the present appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. At the outset, i…

Hotel Inphom, Mumbai vs. ACIT-20(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5325/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri C.N.Prasad (Jm)

Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…igh Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and shareholders (supra) mandates that assessee’s claim should be considered and the decision should be taken as per law. We further note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited Vs CIT (284 ITR 323) has expounded that the decision in that case would not impinge upon the powers upon the ITAT to consider assessee’s claim otherwise than by revised return. In accordance with the aforesaid case laws, we remit the issue to the file of the AO and AO is directed to considered the claim of the assessee and pass an order as per law, after giving the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle Bhopal, Bhopal vs. Mayank Welfare Society, Indore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

ITA 776/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year: 2013-14 DCIT(E) Bhopal : Appellant V/s Mayank Welfare Society, Indore : Respondent PAN:AANFM0784C Assessment Year: 2015-16 ACIT(E) Bhopal : Appellant V/s Mayank Welfare Society, Indore : Respondent PAN: AANFM0784C Revenue by Shri Rajeeb Jain CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Shri Gagan Tiwari, ARs Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 Da…

The DCIT, (Exemption) Circle, Bhopal vs. M/S. Mayank Welfare Society, Bhopal

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

ITA 232/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year: 2013-14 DCIT(E) Bhopal : Appellant V/s Mayank Welfare Society, Indore : Respondent PAN:AANFM0784C Assessment Year: 2015-16 ACIT(E) Bhopal : Appellant V/s Mayank Welfare Society, Indore : Respondent PAN: AANFM0784C Revenue by Shri Rajeeb Jain CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Shri Gagan Tiwari, ARs Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 Da…

Star Paper Mills Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 127/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80ISection 92B

…allowed on mercantile basis during the relevant year. Per contra, the Ld. CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue opposed the admission of this fresh claim by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). He further submitted that the judgment relied upon by the assessee was not applicable in as much as there has been a change in law and the provisions of Section 43B(1)(a) had been amended from 01.04.1989 to include ‘fees’ within its ambit. 45. We have heard both the parties. As regards the admissibility of this ground, we note that the assesse…

Saf Yeast Co. P.Ltd., Mumba vs. ACIT CC-7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1800/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tax Cc-7(1), Vs. 419, Swastik Chambers, Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, Chembur, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Hemant Chimanlal Leuwa, DR
Section 80I

…the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the bona fide claim can be entertained on the stage of appellate proceedings as per the Apex Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Limited v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). After M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd. considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that AO has not considered the claim for the reason that no revised return was filed to make this claim and hence the same was not allowable. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that it is evident that the claim of the assessee is not a fres…

Dy CIT - CC- 7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Saf Yeast Co.Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1714/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tax Cc-7(1), Vs. 419, Swastik Chambers, Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, Chembur, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Hemant Chimanlal Leuwa, DR
Section 80I

…the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the bona fide claim can be entertained on the stage of appellate proceedings as per the Apex Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Limited v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). After M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd. considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that AO has not considered the claim for the reason that no revised return was filed to make this claim and hence the same was not allowable. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that it is evident that the claim of the assessee is not a fres…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune vs. M/S. Adwitiya Projects (India) Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2110/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan
Section 250

…t. Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 596 and Hon Pune Tribunal’s decision in the case of Akruti Projects, ITA No.387/PN/2012 dated 10/01/2014. The AO could not have accepted the claim of the appellant in view of Hon. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Goetz India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 (SC). However, he should have dealt with the issue specifying the reasons for rejecting the said claim. However, restrictions put in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (supra.) are not applicable to appellate authorities as held by Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). Relying upon t…

M/S Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2826/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., No. 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Commissioner IT(TP)A No. Building No. 3, of Income Tax, 2009-10 2333/Bang/2016 West Wing, Off HAL Circle 11 (5), Airport Road, Yamlur P.O., Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 037. PAN: AAACL2937J M/s. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 77, Town Centre, Commissioner of Income- ITA No. Building No. 3, tax, 2260/Bang/2016 West W…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Lifestyle International Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2473/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., No. 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Commissioner IT(TP)A No. Building No. 3, of Income Tax, 2009-10 2333/Bang/2016 West Wing, Off HAL Circle 11 (5), Airport Road, Yamlur P.O., Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 037. PAN: AAACL2937J M/s. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 77, Town Centre, Commissioner of Income- ITA No. Building No. 3, tax, 2260/Bang/2016 West W…

M/S.Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2334/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., No. 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Commissioner IT(TP)A No. Building No. 3, of Income Tax, 2009-10 2333/Bang/2016 West Wing, Off HAL Circle 11 (5), Airport Road, Yamlur P.O., Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 037. PAN: AAACL2937J M/s. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 77, Town Centre, Commissioner of Income- ITA No. Building No. 3, tax, 2260/Bang/2016 West W…