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

Raj Tarang Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 32(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3946/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3946 /मुं/2019("न.व.2014-15) Raj Tarang 1 Housing Society, Shiv Vallabh Cross Road, Ashokvan, Rawalpada, Dahisar East, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 068. Pan:Aaaar-6740-H बनाम/ Vs.

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi/
Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…tation at the time of assessment proceedings and subsequently by way of additional ground before the CIT(A) To support his arguments the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 2. National Thermal Power Company Ltd.Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) 3. CIT vs.Pruthvi Brokers & Share Holders, 349 ITR 336(Bom) 4. CIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Ltd. 90 ITR 236 (All) 5. Solaris Bio-Chemicals vs. DCIT, TS-5929-ITAT-2012(Del) 4.2 On merits of allowability of assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of intere…

Datta Prasad Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -26(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6029/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 80A(5)Section 80P(2)(a)

…e of the assessee submitted that even if a claim has not been made in the return of income, it can still be made before the appellate authorities. In this context, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). Thus, keeping in view the submissions of learned authorized representative of the assessee, we proceed to decide the issue. 8. Pertinently, in case of EBR Enterprises vs UOI (supra), the facts are, in the return of income filed for the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee did not claim deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, though, t…

Jalaj Ashwin Dani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5375/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Dalpat Shah (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)
Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 35ASection 80G

…t if a deduction for an expenditure is allowable under different section the claim for such deduction cannot be rejected in the appeal proceedings. The appellant submits that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 does not debar the appellant authorities in admitting alternate legal claim as held in the case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 336 (Bom). Levy of Interest u/s 234B & u/s 234D The said CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B of Rs.2.04,032/- and u/s 234D of Rs.7,125/- when no such interest can be cha…

Viacom 18 Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

ITA 8754/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.8754/Mum./2010 (Assessment Year : 2006–07) Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. Zion Bizworld, Subhash Road–A ……………. Appellant Near Garware Office, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai 400 057 PAN – AAACM9164E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–11(2), Mumbai IT(TP)A no.7337/Mum./2012 (Assessment Year : 2007–08) Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. Zion Bizworld, Subhash Road–A ……………. Appellant Near Garware Office, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai 400 057 PAN – AAACM9164E v/s Addl. Comm…

M/S. Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 707/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ashok A.Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (supra). Further, the 9 ITA No.707/Bang/2020. M/s.Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Limited. judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited v. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 only impinge upon the powers of the Assessing Officer to consider a claim which is not made in the return of income, whereas, such restriction is not there with regard to power of an Appellate Authority. We are of the view that the issue of ex-gratia payment, whether it can be subjected to disallowance u/s 43B of the I.T.Act needs examination by…

Ashok Kirtanlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Add. CIT CC-22 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5842/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balalganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ashok Kirtanlal Shah Addl. Cit-Range 19(1) (Presently, Addl, Circle 22(1) 401, 4Th Floor, Anand House, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, 13Th Road, Off. Linking Road, Mumbai 400 012 Khar West, Mumbai – 400 052

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA No.5842/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 1 Ashok Kirtanlal Shah Vs. Addl.CIT, Range-19(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALALGANESH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Ashok Kirtanlal Shah Addl. CIT-Range 19(1) (Presently, Addl, Circle 22(1) 401, 4th Floor, Anand House, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, 13th Road, Off. Linking Road, Mumbai 400 012 Khar West, Mumbai – 400 052 PAN No. AAHPS3203L (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Brajendra Kumar, D.R Date of Hearing : 23/08/2021 Date of pronouncement : 01/09…

ACIT Circle- 16 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Sky Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7451/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.MistriFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 194HSection 36Section 40

…t Ltd.(supra) relied by Ld.CIT(A). In none of this case ITAT had decided the issue in assessee’s favour for earlier year. Moreover, in this regard, we also rely upon the later decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). In the said case Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that their decision in the said case would not impinge upon the powers of ITAT to admit grounds other than by revised return. This is more so in this case when the same issue was decided by ITAT in earlier years in assessee’s favour. Accordingly, we hold that Ld.CIT(A) has erred in rejecting t…

Tata Sky Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7337/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.MistriFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 194HSection 36Section 40

…t Ltd.(supra) relied by Ld.CIT(A). In none of this case ITAT had decided the issue in assessee’s favour for earlier year. Moreover, in this regard, we also rely upon the later decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). In the said case Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that their decision in the said case would not impinge upon the powers of ITAT to admit grounds other than by revised return. This is more so in this case when the same issue was decided by ITAT in earlier years in assessee’s favour. Accordingly, we hold that Ld.CIT(A) has erred in rejecting t…

M/S. Narayana Hrudayalaya Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed and appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1679/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 35Section 35ASection 43B

…rred in not allowing the eligible deduction claimed by the appellant under section 35AD of the Act during the assessment proceedings relying upon the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetz [India] Ltd., Vs. CIT [2006] reported in 284 ITR 323 [SC]. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] ought to have appreciated that in accordance with the Board Circular and based on parity of reasoning of several case laws, even though if the assessee has inadvertently not claimed any eligible deduction in its return of income it is incumbent on the officers of the department to grant eligi…

Jsw Seel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals are dismissed

ITA 875/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm) Jsw Steel Ltd. Dcit, Cc-46 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Jsw Centre, Bkc Complex Mumbai-400 051 Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: 01.06.2021
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…not considered by the AO in his assessment order. Ld.CIT(A) did not find aforesaid claim maintainable. He was of the opinion that firstly the claim has not been made by way of revised return, hence Hon’ble supreme court decision in the case of Goetze(I) Ltd. 284 ITR 323 is applicable. Furthermore, Ld. CIT(A) found that as held by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel India vs ACIT 259 CTR 281 that the provisions of Sections 153A to 153C cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the AO and/or assessee. Hence, he found that the claim was not maintainable hence he dismissed the claim. The or…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3) Erstwhile DCIT CC 46, Mumbai vs. Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals are dismissed

ITA 1338/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm) Jsw Steel Ltd. Dcit, Cc-46 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Jsw Centre, Bkc Complex Mumbai-400 051 Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: 01.06.2021
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…not considered by the AO in his assessment order. Ld.CIT(A) did not find aforesaid claim maintainable. He was of the opinion that firstly the claim has not been made by way of revised return, hence Hon’ble supreme court decision in the case of Goetze(I) Ltd. 284 ITR 323 is applicable. Furthermore, Ld. CIT(A) found that as held by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel India vs ACIT 259 CTR 281 that the provisions of Sections 153A to 153C cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the AO and/or assessee. Hence, he found that the claim was not maintainable hence he dismissed the claim. The or…

M/S Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Ludhiana

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

ITA 262/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 262/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 20112-13 बनाम M/S Nahar Industrial The Acit, Enterprises, Focal Point, Circle-7, Aayakar Bhawan, Ludhiana. Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaccn3563A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing Through Video Conferencing "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Navdeep Sharma, Adv. राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Sandeep Dhaiya, Cit Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2021 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2021 आदेश/Order Per R.L. Negi:

For Appellant: Shri Navdeep Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Dhaiya, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 8D

…here is no provision under the Act to amend the return of income at the assessment stage. The Ld. DR further submitted that the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323, therefore liable to be set aside. 15. We have perused the material on record including the decision of the coordinate Bench relied upon by the Ld. Counsel. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra)…

DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. Orient Paper & Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Dr. M. L. Meena]

…ssee offers income which is not taxable, then the AO is duty bound to tax only the legitimate income. However, the plea of the assessee was not entertained by the AO who cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) and has held that since assessee has not filed its claim by filing a 3 M/s. Orient Paper & Industries Ltd., AY 2015-16 revised return of income the deduction cannot be allowed. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who was pleased to allow the claim by holding as under: “Find that the AO has not considering the…

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is partly allowed

ITA 3618/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhusan Shukla, CIT, DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2003-04 Xerox India Ltd., Vs ACIT, 5th Floor, Block 1, Central Circle-20, Vatika Business Park, New Delhi. Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. PAN: AAACM8634R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Shashi Bhusan Shukla, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 15.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21st February, 2017 of th…

DCIT-11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sangam India Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1490/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld
Section 2(24)

…ellate authorities to entertain a new claim of the assessee during appellate proceedings as per the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (1998 229 ITR 383) as well as the decision in Goetz India Limited V/s CIT (284 ITR 323). The Ld. AR submitted that 16 M/s Sangam India Limited Assessment Year: 2015-16 since the relief is being sought on the basis of subsequent favorable decisions, these grounds could not have been raised earlier. The Ld. CIT-DR has opposed admission of additional grounds at this stage. 9.3 We are of the considered opinion that as per the ratio of…

Hdfc Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5672/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Hdfc Bank Limited Acit-2(3)(1) Hdfc Bank House Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) to observe that the purpose of assessment is to tax real income. This court taking note of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323/157 Taxman 1 and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) in the case of Mitesh Impex (supra) had observed as under (page 103 of 367 ITR): "It thus becomes clear that the decision of the Supreme Court hi the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (supra) is confined to the powers of the Assessing Officer and accepting a claim without revised return. T…

Shri Satish Mayekar, Mumbai vs. DCIT-28(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4787/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Accountantmember) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Satish Mayekar, Dcit-28(3), 404, Geetanjali, Ranade Road, Erstwhile Dcit-22(3), Dadar, Mumbai-400028. Navi Mumbai-400703. Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. SandipKejariwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Vijay Kumar Menon, DR
Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the set off of F&O toss of Rs.22,88,642 against business income and carry forward of short term capital Loss of Rs.30.99,430 lo the subsequent years, relying on decision of Apex Court in case Of Goetze India Lid (SC) 2006 284 ITR 323 without considering the facts that !he said decision restrict the Assessing Officer to allow the claim made during the course of scrutiny assessment and not the Appellate authorities. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of IOC Petrol & Diesel retail outlet and filed the return of incom…

Navodaya Education Trust, Raichur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 49/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kaul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Devarathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154

…in the interest of justice and equity, provided there is no deliberate and mala fide omission by the appellant. In this regard reliance is placed on the following decisions:- a) CIF v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. 306 ITR 42 (Del.) b) Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) 40. In light of the discussion as above, it is submitted that the CPC, Bengaluru made the impugned adjustment in its intimation u/s 143(1), erroneously and as such the same was rectifiable as per the provisions of section 154. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the the same and rejecting the rectification application filed by the appel…

Bharatbhai Balubhai Ghelani, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle1(3), Surat

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

ITA 704/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharatbhai Balubhai Ghelani Dcit, Circle-1(3), B-103, Royal Residency, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Mahalaxmi Mandir, Majuragate, Surat-395001 Anand Mahal Road, Surat-395009 Pan : Aawpg 3437 H Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 139(5)Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54B

…. CIT(A) and the Hon’ble Tribunal is entitled to admit the additional ground of appeal for additional claim. To support his submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mitex Impex, 46 Taxmann.com 30 (Guj). 3. On the basis of aforesaid factual and legal submission, the Ld.AR for the assessee submits that the additional claim of the assessee may be admitted 2 Sh. Bharatbhai B Ghelani and the issue may restore to the file of Assessing Officer t…

M/S Asia Star Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7667/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2015-16
Section 139Section 35ASection 80G

…nd u/s. 35AC of Rs. 38,42,500/-and Rs. 6,46,000/- respectively against the total deduction 2 M/s. Asian Star Company Ltd. claimed of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the return of income. The AO rejected the claim on the basis of the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323(SC). 4. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s action by concluding as under : “In view of the above position of Law, on plain reading of this section wherein, it has been very clearly mentioned that, the deduction under this section shall not be allowed if the assessee failed to file a certificate for the payment m…