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

M/S. Eldeco Eden Park Apartments Owners Welfare & Maintenance Association, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

…the head profits and income from business. It was submitted that the issue of mutuality was taken before the ld. CIT(A) who did not allow the claim of assessee for mutuality by holding that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) has held that no fresh claim can be made otherwise than through a revised return of income. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (Supra) deals with the powers of the Assessing Officer and nowhere it commented reg…

M/S. Eldeco Eden Park Apartments Owners Welfare & Maintenance Association, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 197/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

…the head profits and income from business. It was submitted that the issue of mutuality was taken before the ld. CIT(A) who did not allow the claim of assessee for mutuality by holding that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) has held that no fresh claim can be made otherwise than through a revised return of income. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (Supra) deals with the powers of the Assessing Officer and nowhere it commented reg…

M/S. Eldeco Eden Park Apartments Owners Welfare & Maintenance Association, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 196/LKW/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

…the head profits and income from business. It was submitted that the issue of mutuality was taken before the ld. CIT(A) who did not allow the claim of assessee for mutuality by holding that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) has held that no fresh claim can be made otherwise than through a revised return of income. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (Supra) deals with the powers of the Assessing Officer and nowhere it commented reg…

M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/392/2016HC Karnataka06 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.392 OF 2016 BETWEEN: M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI C N DEVARAJ, "UTHUNGA" NO.1 PMK ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560 018. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. A. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1), BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVI…

M/S Novozymes South Asia Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 895/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.894/Bang/2018 Assessment Year:2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…ed deduction towards the 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. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323/157 taxman 1 (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, w…

M/S Novozymes South Asia Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 894/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.894/Bang/2018 Assessment Year:2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…ed deduction towards the 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. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323/157 taxman 1 (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, w…

Dy CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Navi Mumbai

ITA 7672/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit -15(2)(1) M/S Hexaware Technologies 3Rd Floor, Room No. 357, Vs. Ltd., Unit No. 152, Millennium Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Business Park, Ttc, Marine Lines, Industrial Area, Mahape, Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 710

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 288Section 80J

…reasons, viz. (i) that as the said claim for deduction was neither raised in the original return of income nor by way of a filing of a revised return, therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) the same could not be admitted; and (ii) that in support of its claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA the assessee had failed to furnish along with its return of income the report of the accountant as was required per the mandate of clause (b) of sub-section (2) to Sec. 80JJAA, and had furnished a report dated 27.02.2014 in Form No. 10DA r.w. „Expl…

The Sarswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6609/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Neehar Pandey, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…/- (-) Rs. 50,64,432/-] that was made by the A.O u/s 14A of the Act. 9. We have given a thoughtful consideration qua the aforesaid issue; and are of the considered view that as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), though an A.O is precluded from allowing any relief that had not been claimed by an assessee in its return of income, but no such restriction can be read into the powers of ITA Nos. 6609 &6610/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 11 The Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. ITO-1(3)(1) the appellate authorities. As such, we are unable to persuade…

R.Venkata Dhana Lakshmi Legal Heir of Late R. Venkateswara Rao, Lingapalem Mandal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru

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

ITA 121/VIZ/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.121/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) R.Venkata Dhana Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer (Wife & Legal Heir Of Late Ward-2 R.Venkateswara Rao) Eluru Prop : Bharthi Teja Constructions D.No.3-158, Western Street Dharmajigudem Lingapalem Mandal West Godavari [Pan : Agfpr6873H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (through web-based video conferencing platform) श्री एन के चौिरी,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस .सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.121/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) R.Venkata Dhana Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer (wife & legal heir of late Ward-2 R.Venkateswara Rao) Eluru Prop : Bharthi Teja Constructions D.No.3-158, Western Street Dharmajigudem Lingapalem Man…

Krishnaiah Bollineni, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1661/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sri D.V. Anjaneyulu, ARFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)

…s to be deleted. 5. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding order of AO who has not allowed additional expenditure incurred towards Horse Race of Rs.1,47,119/- based on actual account statement from Hyderabad Race Club solely relying on Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) ignoring Raghavan Nair Vs ACIT [2018] 162 DTR (Ker) 353 which has duly distinguished the case law relied by AO and hence the expenditure is to be allowed. 6. Ld CIT(A) further erred in law in not allowing carry forward of loss for AY 2015-16 under the head 'owning and maintaining race horses' of RsA,61,942jsimply by relying on the order of A…

Modern Papers, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3931/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 139(5)

…of the Income-tax Act (“the Act”), in the absence of any revised return, no claim of assessee could be considered by way of a simple letter. The Assessing Officer then relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC). Assessing Officer accordingly refused to consider the claim of assessee to treat the Excise Subsidy as capital receipt instead of Revenue Receipts though the assessee offered the same to tax under the mistaken impression. 4. When the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) referred to the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Cou…

M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner of

In the result, appeal is disposed of

ITA/762/2017HC Karnataka15 Jun 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.762 OF 2017 BETWEEN: M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED (BEING SUCCESSOR IN BUSINESS TO ERST WHILE ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED) REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI. DIPAK GUPTA ING VYSYA HOUSE NO 22, M G ROAD BENGALURU - 560001 PAN: NO AABCT0529M. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.) AND: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 11…

ACIT Cir 22(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Asian Chemical Industries, Mumbai

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

ITA 3579/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Circle – 22(1) Vs. M/S. Asian Chemical Rm No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Industries, Flat No. Piramal Chambers, 101, Mahir Building, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai Santacruz (W), – 400012. Mumbai.400054 Pan/Gir No. : Aabaa02702G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Azar Zain, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Veer Kumar Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2021

For Appellant: Shri Azar Zain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Veer Kumar Shah, AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…g the income instead of in the hands of three co owners of the property. The assessee can not rectify the claim by filling a revised computation of income, but as per the observations of the Honble Supreme court in the case of Goetze (india) Ltd Vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee has to file the revised return of income for such M/s. Asian Chemical Industries, Mumbai claims before the A.O.But the assessee chooses to file revised computation of income and not revised return of income. Further, we find that the CIT(A) has considered the claim of the assessee and observed that the gains on sale of property…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4785/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…the course of the assessment proceedings except for where the same is raised by filing of a revised return of income. The aforesaid view of the CIT(A) is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd.(supra) had specifically observed that its decision was qua the restriction on entertainment of a ‘fresh claim’ of deduction by the A.O in the course of the assessment proceedings and would in no way impinge on the powers of the Income-tax Appellate…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4784/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…the course of the assessment proceedings except for where the same is raised by filing of a revised return of income. The aforesaid view of the CIT(A) is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd.(supra) had specifically observed that its decision was qua the restriction on entertainment of a ‘fresh claim’ of deduction by the A.O in the course of the assessment proceedings and would in no way impinge on the powers of the Income-tax Appellate…

Gocl Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 579/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.Ratnakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

…rify the corresponding claim. The Assessing Officer’s consequential assessment dt.30-01-2017 holds that such an additional claim could not be entertained in absence of a revised return as per hon'ble apex court’s decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing argument. Their lordships have made it clear in para 4 that the same only applies on the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction to entertain a new claim than impinging upon the appellate authorities’ similar jurisdiction to allow the concerned parties to plead new grounds. We therefore direct the Assess…

Gocl Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2012/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.Ratnakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

…rify the corresponding claim. The Assessing Officer’s consequential assessment dt.30-01-2017 holds that such an additional claim could not be entertained in absence of a revised return as per hon'ble apex court’s decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing argument. Their lordships have made it clear in para 4 that the same only applies on the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction to entertain a new claim than impinging upon the appellate authorities’ similar jurisdiction to allow the concerned parties to plead new grounds. We therefore direct the Assess…

Express Drilling Systems Llc, Noida vs. DCIT International Taxation, Dehradun

In the result ground number 2 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6630/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun04 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiexpress Drilling Systems Llc, Vs. Dict International Taxation, C/O. Nangia & Co, Circle-1, Dehradun A-109, Sector-136, Noida Pan: Aabce6891R (Appellant (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. C. Uppadhay, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 201(1)Section 40

…essee was partly allowed. He dismissed claim of assessee for disallowance u/s 40 (a) (ia) of The Income Tax Act holding that assessee has not made the claim in the return of income which is mandatory. He applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 284 ITR 323. According to him, assessee should have filed the revised return. During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee was asked to produce evidence in this regard that payees have furnished returns u/s 139, included this sum in their return, and paid tax thereon. ld CIT (A) held that assessee could not brought anything on record to suggest that…

K Raheja Corp P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 7463/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7463/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) K. Raheja Corp. Private Ltd. Dcit–Cc-4(2) Raheja Tower Mumbai. बिाम/ Plot No.C-30, G Block Vs. Opp. Sidbi, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-0522-B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala (Ld. Sr. Counsel) & Ms. Aarati Sathe (Ld. Ar) Revenue By : Shri Jayant Jhaveri-Ld.Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2012-13 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-52/It/Dc-Cc-4(2)/300/2015-16 Dated 30/09/2016 On Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Ld. SrFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri-Ld.CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…it missed out depreciation claim of Rs.400.64 Lacs on assets given on finance lease. The claim was rejected By Ld. AO since the new claim could be made only by revising the return of income as per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). Another observation was that these leased assets did not form part of business assets for the assessee and therefore, not eligible for depreciation. No such under claim of depreciation was reported by Tax Auditor. 9.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee had installed certain assets in the nature of DG sets, HVAC chillers etc. at its premises…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…t assessee has agreed to the additions made by the AO during assessment proceedings, when no such acceptance/ consent has been given by the assessee. Relying on Apex Court judgment in M/ s Goetze (India) Ltd. V. ITA Nos.314 & 315/Bang/2020 Page 56 of 70 CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), the lower authorities observed that the assessee cannot make additional claim during assessment proceedings other than the claim made in the return of income under section 139; and that the assessee himself has declared the profit and gain on sale of F & 0 under the head capital gains. Since, loss on Trading in F & 0 is not disclosed as Tur…