Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

Batliboi Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…essee are not applicable at all. The assessee herein the present case has made a claim before the Assessing Officer by way of simple note which cannot be accepted in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323/157 Taxman 1 (SC), which clearly envisages that a claim can only be made through revised income of return. On merits, he submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the department in view of the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Veekaylal Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 597/116 Taxman 104 (Bom.) (ii) Kopran Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Dy…

Il & Fs Transportation Networks Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Range - 14(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodil & Fs Transportation Networks Asstt. Commissioner Of Limited, The Il & Fs Financial Income-Tax, Range -14(2)(1), Center, Plot No.C-22, Room No. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. 460, 4Th Floor, G Block, Bandra- Road, Marine Lines, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan – Aabcc5460A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit -14(2)(1), M/S Il & Fs Transportation Network 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., Il & Fs Financial Centre, 8Th Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Floor, C-22, G Block, B.K.C. Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051

…e 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. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 (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, warrants no in…

Omprakash Kewalram Kakwani, Mumbai vs. ACIT-C 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.4134/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2016–17) Shri Omprakash KewalramKakwani 17/4, 1st Floor, Prabhu Niwas Rak Road ……………. Appellant Wadala, Mumbai 400 031 PAN – AACPK6609F v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–20(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue by : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi Date of Hearing – 08.12.2020 Date of Order – 28/01/2021 O R D E R Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 30th May 2019, passed by the learned Commissione…

Indian Express Newspapaers (Mumbai) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.5376 /Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Indian Express Newspapers Dy. Cit-3(2)(1) (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Express Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400021

…n and are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the manner in which the CIT(A) had disposed off the aforesaid grievance of the assessee. Admittedly, in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) an A.O is not permitted to allow any claim raised by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings, except for where the same had been raised by filing of a revised return of income. However, the position does not remain the same insofar the appellate authorities are concerned. As observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in th…

Il & Fs Transportation Networks Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT-14(2) (Earlier Addl.CIT, RG. 10(1)), Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.2927 & 2928/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Il & Fs Transportation Networks Addl. Commissioner Of Limited, The Il & Fs Financial Income-Tax, Range -14(2), Center, Plot No.C-22, Room No. [Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Range-10(1), Mumbai] 460, 4Th Floor, G Block, Bandra- Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aabcc5460A (Appellant) (Respondent)

…26,166/-, as against that suo motto offered by it in its return of income at Rs. 12,21,33,326/-. As noticed by us hereinabove, the A.O was of the view that in light of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR 182 (SC), in the absence of a revised return of income, the seeking of reduction of the disallowance that was suo motto offered by the assessee in its return of ITA Nos.2927 & 2928, 3145 & 3146/Mum/2018, A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 IL & FS Transportation Networks Limited Vs. Addl. CIT, Range 14(2) 10 income was not tenable. In fact, the A.O was of the v…

Alpha Stud&Farms Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Alpha Stud & Farms Ito – 12(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.226, C-605, Neelkanth 2Nd Floor, Business Park, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nathani Road, M.K. Road, Vidyavihar-West, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai- 400 086 Pan: Aabca 5124B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Harish Mahajani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income –Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Upholding The Stand Of The Assessing Officer Of Not Reducing Gain Of Rs.69,69,260/- On Account Of Sale Of Agricultural Land. 2. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income –Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Upholding The Stand Of The Assessing Officer Of Not Reducing Agricultural Income Of Rs.2,51,803 /-. 3. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, There Would Be A Consequential Impact On The Interest Charged Under Section 234B & 234C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961”

…60/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,51,803/- in the return of income while computing book profit under section 115JB. While passing the appellate order , the Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) and held that AO has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee. Finally, the Ld. CIT(A) came to conclusion that there is no mistake apparent on record in the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee by observing that scope of rectification under section 154 of the Act is limited to the ext…