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 366,470 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

Satavahana University, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 1525/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1524/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1525/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1526/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: Satavahana University Vs. Ito आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 10Section 10(230)Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

…he appellant had neither filed return of income u/s 139(1) not 148. Therefore, exemption claimed by the appellant without filing the return of income is not correct. Reliance is placed the decision of Hon'ble SC in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 284 ITR 323. Therefore, action taken by the AO is confirmed and accordingly ground no. 2 raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 4.3 Ground no.4&5 - Addition made u/s 69 and 69A of the Act. 4.3.1 During the assessment proceedings, the appellant neither submitted any supporting documentary evidences with respect to the exemption claimed u/s 10 nor any do…

Satavahana University, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 1524/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1524/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1525/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1526/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: Satavahana University Vs. Ito आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 10Section 10(230)Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

…he appellant had neither filed return of income u/s 139(1) not 148. Therefore, exemption claimed by the appellant without filing the return of income is not correct. Reliance is placed the decision of Hon'ble SC in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 284 ITR 323. Therefore, action taken by the AO is confirmed and accordingly ground no. 2 raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 4.3 Ground no.4&5 - Addition made u/s 69 and 69A of the Act. 4.3.1 During the assessment proceedings, the appellant neither submitted any supporting documentary evidences with respect to the exemption claimed u/s 10 nor any do…

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 915/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 29– in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(Appeals) has also rejected the claim by holding that the additional deduction was not supported by a revised Form 10DA and that such omission was fatal. In our considered view, the action of the CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the claim solely on the technical ground of non-filing of the revised Form 10DA is legally unsustainable. The Ho…

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Dehi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 914/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…dition during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer declined to entertain the claim on the ground that it was not made by way of a revised return, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(Appeals) has also rejected the claim by holding that the additional deduction was not supported by a revised Form 10DA and that such omission was fatal. In our considered view, the action of the CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the claim solely on the technical ground of non-filing of the revised Form 10DA is legally unsustainable. The Ho…

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi (Present Jurisdiction - the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 913/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 29– in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(Appeals) has also rejected the claim by holding that the additional deduction was not supported by a revised Form 10DA and that such omission was fatal. In our considered view, the action of the CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the claim solely on the technical ground of non-filing of the revised Form 10DA is legally unsustainable. The Ho…

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Dehi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 29– in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(Appeals) has also rejected the claim by holding that the additional deduction was not supported by a revised Form 10DA and that such omission was fatal. In our considered view, the action of the CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the claim solely on the technical ground of non-filing of the revised Form 10DA is legally unsustainable. The Ho…

DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 850/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 29– in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(Appeals) has also rejected the claim by holding that the additional deduction was not supported by a revised Form 10DA and that such omission was fatal. In our considered view, the action of the CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the claim solely on the technical ground of non-filing of the revised Form 10DA is legally unsustainable. The Ho…

Dcie Circle-2(1)(1), Ahemdabad, Vejalpur vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 849/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 29– in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(Appeals) has also rejected the claim by holding that the additional deduction was not supported by a revised Form 10DA and that such omission was fatal. In our considered view, the action of the CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the claim solely on the technical ground of non-filing of the revised Form 10DA is legally unsustainable. The Ho…

DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 848/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…dition during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer declined to entertain the claim on the ground that it was not made by way of a revised return, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(Appeals) has also rejected the claim by holding that the additional deduction was not supported by a revised Form 10DA and that such omission was fatal. In our considered view, the action of the CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the claim solely on the technical ground of non-filing of the revised Form 10DA is legally unsustainable. The Ho…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Eris Lifescience Limited Shivarth Ambit, Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2018-19 & 2020-21 to 2022-23 - 29– in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(Appeals) has also rejected the claim by holding that the additional deduction was not supported by a revised Form 10DA and that such omission was fatal. In our considered view, the action of the CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the claim solely on the technical ground of non-filing of the revised Form 10DA is legally unsustainable. The Ho…

Toufeeq Charitable Trust, Malappuram vs. ITO, Exemption, Thrissur

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

ITA 818/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Toufeeq Charitable Trust .......... Appellant C-14,139, Thaqua, Andathode, Malappuram [Pan: Aaatt6160E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra [Cit(A)] Dated 14.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Trust Duly Registered U/S. 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). It Is Founded With The Object Of Running Educational Institution For Charity. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Filed On 14.06.2016 Disclosing Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 Of The Act. The Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thrissur

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…by holding that the disallowance of capital expenditure of Rs. 25,40,942/- cannot be allowed as no claim was made for exemption in the return of income placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of other items. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learne…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. M/S. U.P. State Construction & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Lucknow

ITA 617/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

…or making the payment to government was furnished ignoring the fact that complete books of accounts were produced and the Ld. A.O. did not call for producing the vouchers, etc. (d) The case cited by the Ld. A.O. Goetz India Ltd, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 284 ITR 323 (SC) has no applicability to the present case. 5(2) The findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order are as under- As per Schedule-6 'Other Current Liabilities' of Balance Sheet, other payables include Rs. 3,68,33,045/- payable on account of labour cess. 'file labour cess is a statutory liability. The assessee was show caused to furn…

U.P Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Limited (Now Known As U.P State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.), Lucknow vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Lucknow

ITA 67/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

…or making the payment to government was furnished ignoring the fact that complete books of accounts were produced and the Ld. A.O. did not call for producing the vouchers, etc. (d) The case cited by the Ld. A.O. Goetz India Ltd, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 284 ITR 323 (SC) has no applicability to the present case. 5(2) The findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order are as under- As per Schedule-6 'Other Current Liabilities' of Balance Sheet, other payables include Rs.3,68,33,045/- payable on account of labour cess. 'file labour cess is a statutory liability. The assessee was show caused to furni…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2890/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ased to 82,39,79,483/- , in nutshell increase of Rs. 33,55,933/- in the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. However, the Learned Assessing Officer in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) reported in 284 ITR 323 has not accepted the additional claim. Further in appeal raised by appellant before the Learned CIT(A) remain unsuccessful on the ITA Nos. 2862 & 2863/Del/2018 reasoning of the Learned CIT(A) that the contention of the appellant is not accepted as the power of the CIT(A) are coterminous with that of the AO. 7.2 Having regard to the facts under…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2889/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ased to 82,39,79,483/- , in nutshell increase of Rs. 33,55,933/- in the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. However, the Learned Assessing Officer in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) reported in 284 ITR 323 has not accepted the additional claim. Further in appeal raised by appellant before the Learned CIT(A) remain unsuccessful on the ITA Nos. 2862 & 2863/Del/2018 reasoning of the Learned CIT(A) that the contention of the appellant is not accepted as the power of the CIT(A) are coterminous with that of the AO. 7.2 Having regard to the facts under…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2863/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ased to 82,39,79,483/- , in nutshell increase of Rs. 33,55,933/- in the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. However, the Learned Assessing Officer in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) reported in 284 ITR 323 has not accepted the additional claim. Further in appeal raised by appellant before the Learned CIT(A) remain unsuccessful on the ITA Nos. 2862 & 2863/Del/2018 reasoning of the Learned CIT(A) that the contention of the appellant is not accepted as the power of the CIT(A) are coterminous with that of the AO. 7.2 Having regard to the facts under…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2862/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ased to 82,39,79,483/- , in nutshell increase of Rs. 33,55,933/- in the claim of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. However, the Learned Assessing Officer in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) reported in 284 ITR 323 has not accepted the additional claim. Further in appeal raised by appellant before the Learned CIT(A) remain unsuccessful on the ITA Nos. 2862 & 2863/Del/2018 reasoning of the Learned CIT(A) that the contention of the appellant is not accepted as the power of the CIT(A) are coterminous with that of the AO. 7.2 Having regard to the facts under…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4829/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 35DSection 37(1)

…e case of EBR Enterprises vs. Union of India 415 ITR 139 (Bom) held that if the claim is not made in the return of income for deduction, the same cannot be allowed in the proceedings u/s.264 of the Act. Even in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the assessee can amend the return filed for making a claim of deduction only by filing revised return and cannot make such claim before the assessing authority. Further, the appellant is a commercial bank having the support of professionals for preparing and filing the retum. The retum in question is file…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4501/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 35DSection 37(1)

…e case of EBR Enterprises vs. Union of India 415 ITR 139 (Bom) held that if the claim is not made in the return of income for deduction, the same cannot be allowed in the proceedings u/s.264 of the Act. Even in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the assessee can amend the return filed for making a claim of deduction only by filing revised return and cannot make such claim before the assessing authority. Further, the appellant is a commercial bank having the support of professionals for preparing and filing the retum. The retum in question is file…

Usha Mohan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 127/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CA
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54

…ed for claiming the said deduction when the assessee had not filed her original return of income and also not filed the written response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and therefore as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT, the assessee can claim the said deduction only by filing a revised return within the time allowed. We are of the view that the above judgment relied on by the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be cited as precedent for the reason that the AO himself had accepted in the remand report that the assessee is entitled for deduct…