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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

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…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…x liability is computed and discharged as per the claim made in the return form and not on the basis of notes in the computation of income. The Ld. CIT - DR also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT: 284 ITR 323, wherein it was held that the AO is not bound to entertain a claim made by the assessee otherwise than through return of income filed under section 139(1) or revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act. The Ld. CIT (DR) also referred to the provisions of section 80A (5) of the Act which barred the assessee to raise additional claim…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Wescare (India) Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 509/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: 23.03.2021
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 43B

…o admit the Additional Ground and thus render justice.” 10.2 CIT(A)’s rernarks and decision: The appellant has made a fresh claim through an additional ground as mentioned above. In view of the decision of apex court in the case of Goetze India Ltd.( 2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ramco Cements (2015) 373 ITR 146 (Mad), wherein it is held that the Appellate Authority can entertain a fresh claim, which was not made in the original return of income, the appellant’s additional ground is taken up for adjudication. 10.2.1 The appellant has claimed that the sale of CERs (c…

Smt.Roma Harish Khatri, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 29(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6706/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Smt. Roma Harish Khatri, The Income Tax Officer – 1407, Takshashila, Nirmal Vs. 29(3)(2), 307, 3Rd Floor, C-10, Nagar, Mulund (West), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Shah , A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…y, the assessee had raised a claim of STCL of Rs. 26,92,873/- in her return of income, which the A.O had allowed to be carried forward. As per the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the A.O is divested of his jurisdiction to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by way of filing of a revised return of income by the assessee. As such, we find no infirmity in the conduct of the A.O, who in our considered view had rightly declined to go by the revised claim of the assessee that the loss suffered by her was a deri…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Vijayawada vs. Sri Jasti Sridhar Babu, Kesarapalli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 604/VIZ/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Apr 2021AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 10(1)Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 3Section 54BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 604/VIZ/2019 (Asst. Year : 2015-16) ACIT, Circle-3(1), vs. Jasti Sridhar Babu, Vijayawada. D.No. 12-121, Main Road, Kesarapalli, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District. (Appellant) PAN No. AGCPJ 3869 J (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate. Department by : Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR Date of hearing : 23/03/2021. Date of pronouncement : 07/04/2021. O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has…

Bachhraj Factories Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3986/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 14A

…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…

International Tractors Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu) & Anr

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/35/2019HC Delhi07 Apr 2021
Section 250(4)Section 80J

…Page 6 of 13 claims on the ground that they did not either form part of the original return or the revised return. In support of his approach, the AO has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Goetze (India) Ltd v. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). (v) However, the CIT(A) ruled that the fresh claims made by the assessee could be entertained, and in this context, relied upon the judgments of various Courts and Tribunals. (vi) The CIT(A) thereafter, examined the evidence placed on record by the assessee concerning both the claims, i.e., deductions claimed under Section 80JJAA of…

Shimpoli Laxmi Krupa Chs Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(3) (4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6339/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Shimpoli Laxmi Krupa Chs Ito, 32(3)(4), Room No. 115, Aykar Ltd.,A/201, Shimpoli Laxmi Bhavan, M.K Road, Krupa, Chikoo Wadi, Shimpoli, Mumbai – 400 020. Vs. Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092. Pan – Aadas3812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri. Vijay Kumar Menon, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…M/s Shimpoli Laxmi Krupa CHS Ltd. Vs. ITO- 32(3)(4), Mumbai. ITA No. 6339/Mum/2019 – A.Y 2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member M/s Shimpoli Laxmi Krupa CHS ITO, 32(3)(4), Room No. 115, aykar Ltd.,A/201, Shimpoli Laxmi Bhavan, M.K Road, Krupa, Chikoo Wadi, Shimpoli, Mumbai – 400 020. Vs. Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092. PAN – AADAS3812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Written Submissions Respondent by: Shri. Vijay Kumar Menon, D.R Date of Hearing: 31.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 06.04.2021…

M/S. Srf Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2064/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 37Section 9C

…Book). The CIT (A) refused to consider the additional claim on CER on the groundthat assessee has not made such claim before the assessing officer by filing a revised return. The CIT(A)relied on theHon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in case of Goetze India Ltd [284 ITR 323]. 28. The assessee on merits relied upon following judgments of Hon’ble High Courts which have upheld the capital nature of CER receipts:-  CIT vs My Home Power Ltd. [2014] 365 ITR 82 (AP High Court)  SubhashKabini Power Corporation Limited [TS-236- HC-2016(KAR)]  Pr. CIT v. L.H. Sugar Factory Ltd [2016-TIOL-1942- HC-ALL High Court-IT] and …

Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 6730/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 2004-05
Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ngly, the alternate ground No. 5 is decided in favour of the assessee. While deciding the alternate ground we have noted that though this issue is being raised for the first time but it is a legal issue. Moreover, even in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323), Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted the jurisdiction of the ITAT in considering a ground not raised earlier even without filing revised return. Accordingly, the alternate ground as above stands allowed. 36. Since ground No. 6 is without prejudice to ground No. 5, the ground No. 6 is rejected. Apropos ground No. 7 :- 37. In the absence of any…

M/S Hothur Traders, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 541/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Hothur Traders, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8, Of Income Tax, “Hothur House”, Infantry Road, Circle 1, Cantonment, Fort Road, Bellary – 583 104. Bellary – 583 102. Pan: Aaefh 7705H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, IRSFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

…company. For denying exemption u/s. 10B on enhanced business profit, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee has not filed revised return for claiming deduction u/s. 10B of the Act, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC). On this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. It is submitted that the facts found mentioned in para 4 & 4.1 of pages 3 & 4 of the impugned assessment order would reveal that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.10 crores from M/s. ILC Industries Limited as advance for supply of iron ore fines during the FY 2009-10. The assessee had al…

Nagar Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2555/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2555/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nagar Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Post Box No.7, Central Bank Road, Ahmednagar-414001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaaan0509L बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Ahmednagar. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Learned Acit Ahmednagar Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances In Not Allowing Claims Made During The Course Of Hearing For Exempted Income Of Dividend Of Rs. 1487135/- & Expenses Debited To P & L A/C On Account Of Depreciation On Govt. Securities Rs. 11200000/- To Be Allowed As Exempted Income As Well As Allowable Expenses & The Same Were Also Dismissed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii Pune. 2. That Your Appellant Prays That He May Be Allowed To Add, To Alter Or Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale
Section 41(1)

…ot allowed the claims on the ground that the issues had not arisen out of the assessment order, the claims were not made in the original return of income placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323. 3 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 7. When the matter was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR argued that claim not made in the original return of income cannot be made for the first time before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, he supported…

Jogdhian Hari Bhagwan Rastogi Charitable Memorial Trust, New Delhi vs. ACIT (E) Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3696/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…such claim was never made in the return of income nor by way of revised return of income. 4. When the matter was agitated before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A), drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd 284 ITR 323, confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. It is true that the claim was not made in the return of income. It is equally true that revised return of income was also not filed. In our considered view, a legal claim can be made at any stage and the decision…

Hollister Medical India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4133/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…erred in holding that the additional claim for deduction of ESOP related expenses amounting to Rs. 55,09,865/- is not maintainable by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-tax (2006) (284 ITR 323). 1.3. The learned CIT(A) also erred in holding that the it cannot be said that the AO erred in not allowing the claim. 1.4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing the additional claim by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (229 ITR 383) stating that the power to admit additional claim lies with the IT…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Force Motors Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 1192/PUN/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1192/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M Krishnan
Section 43B

…assessee would be unfair and cause financial harm to the appellant. 4.8.2 The AO did not allow the claim as the amount was not part of the return. The AO was constrained by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (sq. As the Supreme Court in that case has restricted the power of the AO to admit the additional claims which are not reflected in the returns, the action of the AO cannot be found fault with. The question remains whether such claims can be entertained by the appellate authorities. The Mumbai High Court in CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Share holde…

Lord Krishna Rice Mills, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Karnal

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

ITA 9009/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Lord Krishna Rice Mills, Vs Ito, C/O S.B. Gupta, Advocate, Ward-2, 3/93, Mall Road, Karnal. Karnal, Haryana. Pan : Aabfl5926H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mrs. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Karnal, Relating To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Derives Income From Manufacturing & Trading Of Rice By Husking Of Paddy & Sales Thereof. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 25Th September, 2013 Declaring An Income Of Rs.3,41,830/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 15Th February, 2016 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.7,65,330/- Wherein He Made Certain Additions. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Has Claimed Additional Depreciation On Purchase Of Machinery Of Rs.1,17,14,501/-. The Claim Of The Assessee For Additional Depreciation Was Rejected By The Ao Keeping In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of M/S Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Cit Reported In 284 Itr 323, Since The Said Additional Depreciation Was Not Claimed By The Assessee Either In The Original Return Or Through The Revised Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 32(1)

…nal depreciation on purchase of machinery of Rs.1,17,14,501/-. The claim of the assessee for additional depreciation was rejected by the AO keeping in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323, since the said additional depreciation was not claimed by the assessee either in the original return or through the revised return. 3. Before the CIT(A), apart from challenging the other additions, the assessee challenged the order of the AO in denying the claim of additional depreciation which is the subject matter of appeal before the Tribuna…

Sogo Computers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore

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

ITA 847/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 251Section 254

…n appeal before us. 5. In our opinion, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised before him on merits instead of dismissing the same in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it was held that the claim for deduction not made in the return cannot be entertained by the AO otherwise than by filing a revised return. However, this does not in any way limit the power of Tribunal u/s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. Being so, we remand the issue in dispute to the file of the CIT(Appeals) to decide the…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 976/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &
Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Sl. No. ITA No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. 1 976/Ahd/2014 Dy. CIT, Cir-4, GHCL Ltd.,Ahd 2009-10 Ahd 2 1042/Ahd/2014 GHCL Ltd., Dy. CIT, Cir-4, 2009-10 Ahd Ahd 3 302/Ahd/2015 DCIT, Cir- GHCL Ltd., 2010-11 2(1)(1), Ahd Ahd 4 82/Ahd/2015 GHCL Ltd., JCIT, Range-4, 2010-11 Ahd Ahd 5 2279/Ahd/2015 GHCL Ltd., DCIT, Cir- 2011-12 Ahd 2(1)(1), Ahd 6 2625/Ahd/2015 ACIT, Cir- GHCL Ltd., 2011-12 2(1)(1), Ahd Ahd 7 1120/Ahd/2017 ACIT, Cir- GHCL Ltd., 20…

Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1042/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &
Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Sl. No. ITA No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. 1 976/Ahd/2014 Dy. CIT, Cir-4, GHCL Ltd.,Ahd 2009-10 Ahd 2 1042/Ahd/2014 GHCL Ltd., Dy. CIT, Cir-4, 2009-10 Ahd Ahd 3 302/Ahd/2015 DCIT, Cir- GHCL Ltd., 2010-11 2(1)(1), Ahd Ahd 4 82/Ahd/2015 GHCL Ltd., JCIT, Range-4, 2010-11 Ahd Ahd 5 2279/Ahd/2015 GHCL Ltd., DCIT, Cir- 2011-12 Ahd 2(1)(1), Ahd 6 2625/Ahd/2015 ACIT, Cir- GHCL Ltd., 2011-12 2(1)(1), Ahd Ahd 7 1120/Ahd/2017 ACIT, Cir- GHCL Ltd., 20…

The Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Karnataka State Co Operative

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/466/2016HC Karnataka03 Mar 2021

Bench: Cit(A) Is Entertain Able Even When The Same Is Not Claimed In Original Return Of Income Nor The Assessee

Section 10Section 138(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 23CSection 260Section 260ASection 80P

…merits. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on decision in KVAVERNER JOHN BROWN ENGG. (INDIA) (P.)LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE', (2008) 170 TAXMAN 304 (SC), 'GOETZE (INIDA) LTD. VS. CIT', (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), 4. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for 7 the assessee submitted that the assessee filed the original return of income on 28.03.2011 which contained certain typographical errors in Schedule-BP. The assessee had entered ‘NIL’ in item No.1 instead of Rs.2,52,18,534/-. It is further submitted that against this item, the…