How many judgments cite Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT?

1,842 judgments on BharatTax cite Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 153A.

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 367,514 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 14A Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 153A Section 143(1)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 139(5)book profits section 115j revenue expenditure section 115jb capital expenditure disallowance under section 14a section 32 section 254 section 37(1)transfer pricing adjustment liable to tax

Judgments citing Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1210/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (D.R)

Section 80J

…efore AO or the CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee has also failed to file a revised return to claim this deduction before the AO in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble SC in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323. 43 16. We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record. In the case of Voltas Limited in ITA No.6612/Mum/2018 for the Assessment Year 2012-13, the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal vide order dt.30.06.2020 observed in para 7 as under : “ 7. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, per…

M/S. Fnf India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1565/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 135Section 135(5)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…ratuity paid of Rs.17,87,315 and prayed that the same may be allowed. 12. The CIT(Appeals) observed that undisputedly the above claim was not made by the assessee in its return of income or by way of a revised return of income. In Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) the Court held that AO has no such power to entertain any claim of fresh deduction, if the same is not by way of revised return. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view Page 9 of 10 that in view of the restriction of the powers of the AO, the powers of first appellate authority also get restricted accordingly in the absence of any revised return.…

Thimmareddy Krishnareddy, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2650/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Anand Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 54BSection 54F

…missioner though the revised grounds of appeal are duly considered and not expressly rejected by the learned Commissioner. 6. That the learned Commissioner is not justified in incorrectly applying the Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323(SC) and incorrectly holding the if the power of CIT (Appeals) are coterminous with Assessing Officer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision rendered in the case of Goetze India Limited is applicable as well. 7. That the learned Commissioner is not justified in not following the order of jurisdictional Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore decisi…

DCIT Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Greenstar Fertilizers Ltd., Chennai

In the result , the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 34/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35 /Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Green Star Fertilizers Ltd, Income Tax, No.8, Spic House, Corporate Circle-2(1), Mount Road, Guindy, Room No.511, Wanaparthy Block Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. Pan: Aadcg 9451D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. B.Ramakrishnan,FCA &

Section 37Section 37(1)Section 50B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35 /Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner of Vs M/s. Green Star Fertilizers Ltd, Income Tax, No.8, SPIC House, Corporate Circle-2(1), Mount Road, Guindy, Room No.511, Wanaparthy Block Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. PAN: AADCG 9451D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. Suresh Periasamy…

DCIT Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Greenstar Fertilizers Ltd., Chennai

In the result , the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 35/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. B.Ramakrishnan,FCA &

Section 37Section 37(1)Section 50B

M/S Centum Electronics Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2194/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramsubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayan, D.R

Section 10BSection 40

…laims put forth before the AO, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) rejected the same on the plea that the assessee did not make these additional claims by filing revised return of income. Even though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Goetz India Ltd (284 ITR 323) that the assessee could make additional claims only by filing revised return of income, yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that its order does not impinge the power of the ITAT to admit additional claims. Since the assessee has put forth these additional claims before the AO through its letter referred above, we are of the view that these ad…

Nirpan Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Nirpan Securities Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 301-308, Bhagwati House Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai Veera Desai Road Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 058 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn1329A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…norance of the assessee. If the assessee is entitled for some relief / claim / deduction, then the same should be granted to the assessee even if it is not claimed by the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) that any claim of assessee could be entertained only by way of a valid return filed in that regard. However, the very same decision also states that the restriction imposed in that judgement shall not apply to appellate authorities. We also find that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Milton Laminates Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 37…

Modine Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Corp Cir-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 8/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT

Section 37(1)

…of Cooper Corporation (P) Ltd. v. DCIT 69 Taxmann.com 244. However, since the above claim of the assessee was not made in the return of income filed, but only during the course of assessment, by following the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Assessing Officer denied the claim of the above deduction. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the denial of deduction. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the inadvertent omission to make a claim in the return of income and by taking advanta…

Modine Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Corp Cir-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 7/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT

Section 37(1)

Percy E Vandrevala, Mumbai vs. DCIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3600/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh

Section 139(5)

…during the course of the assessment proceedings and not by way of revised return of income. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in misconstruing the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. V. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) and has further erred in rejecting appellant’s claim of long term capital gain. 4. Having regard to the facts of the case, provisions of law and judicial propositions, the claim of the appellant ought to have been accepted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income on 06.02.2012 declaring total income of…

Shirley Suman Master, Mumbai vs. ITO WD - 22(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2027/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

Section 139(5)

…to determine the total income of ` 7,45,890, which included long term capital gain of ` 6,91,940. 5. While deciding the issue in appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. v/s CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) confirmed the addition. 6. I have considered submissions of learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, the assessee had computed long term capital gain in the return of income by estimating the value of property, for indexation benefit, as at 1981 at ` 1 lakh. However,…

Smt. Vijayamma Syamprakash Vaidyan, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2192/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2192/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt.Vijayamma Syamprakash Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Vaidyan, Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat. 832, Q-Tower, Ashirwad Palace, Near Jamna Nagar Bus Stand, Jivkornagar, Bhatar, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Akmps 7570 B] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…the due date. The ld.AR of the assessee further submits that the assessee is legally entitled to raise new claim before the Appellate Authority even without revising return before the AO. The Ld.AR submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gotez (I) Ltd. Vs CIT [284 ITR 323] held that the power to entertain the fresh/ addition claim by appellate authority is not restrict, though AO is not entitled to consider the fresh claim in absence of revised return. In strengthen his submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in S. R. Koshi Vs CIT 276 ITR 165 and de…

M/S. Jindal World Wide Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabadq

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

ITA 2316/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) (Through Virtual Court)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

…ellant has also claimed that similar interest subsidy which is reduced from capital work in progress should also be held as capital receipts. Such additional grounds of appeal were not admitted by Ld. CIT(A) stating that as per the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. 284 ITR 323 (SC) has held that the Assessing Officer does not have power to entertain the claim for deduction otherwise than filing a revised return. 6. During the course of appellate proceeding, Ld. Counsel has submitted that the issue of admitting additional ground of appeal was adjudicated in favour of the assessee by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in…

Trc Engineering India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 499/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Anil Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…e than by filing M/s. TRC Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 6 of 8 revised return. However, it was held that the reason does not impinge upon the power of the Tribunal u/s 254 of the Act. Further, it was held in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) that claims need not be accepted by A.O. when made by assessee through a letter, if same is not claimed in return filed u/s 139 of the Act. However, this is not applicable to the appellate authorities. The first appellate authorities could have considered the claim of the assessee in view of the judgement of NTPC cited (supra). There is a di…

M/S. Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4695/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 251Section 40Section 80I

…facts and in law in not adjudicating the claim of allowance of deduction of Rs.54,21,514 on the ground that the claim was not made by filing a revised return, without 4 appreciating that the embargo/ prohibition contained in the case of Goetze India Limited: 284 ITR 323 (SC) do not apply to the powers of the appellate authority to entertain any fresh/ new claim. 6. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to allow deduction of excess provision of bad debts written back of Rs. 2,58,164. 6.1 That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred o…

Commissoner of Income Tax vs. M/S Shaw Wallace

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

ITA/501/2013HC Karnataka09 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260Section 41(1)

…of Rule 36(A)(3) of the Income Tax Rules, the Tribunal ought to have sent for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'GOETZE INDIA LTD. Vs. CIT' 284 ITR 323. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee while inviting our attention to substantial questions of law framed by this Court submitted that the revenue has not challenged the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the ground that the same are perverse. It has only been urged that the Tribunal committed an error of law in not rem…

Commissoner of Income Tax vs. M/S Shaw Wallace

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/502/2013HC Karnataka09 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 36(1)(vii)

…f Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and the expenditure relating to prior period could not be claimed in the guise of bad debts. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in 'GOETZE INDIA LTD. Vs. CIT' 284 ITR 323. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to paragraphs 6.3 to 6.3.5 of the order passed by the Tribunal and has submitted that Tribunal has found that the assessee had made TDS payments on behalf of its sales promoters with whom assessee had direct business transaction and the loss incurred was duri…

DCIT, Ltu-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Century Plyboards (I), Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2149/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…(supra) on 09.06.2019. We observe that the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mitesh Impex (270 CTR 66) after considering the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC Vs CIT (229 ITR 383) and Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) has held that that, if a claim which is available in law is not raised either inadvertently or an account of erroneous plea of complex legal position, such a relief cannot be shut up for all the times to come merely because it is raised for the first time in appellate proceedings in absence of a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer.…

DCIT, Cir.-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2338/KOL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of The Said Delay & Keeping In View Of The Reasons Given Therein, Which Are Supported By An Affidavit Filed By The Assessing Officer (Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 16 Days On The Part Of The Revenue In Filing This Appeal Before This Tribunal. Even The Ld. Counsel Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. The Delay Of 16 Days On The Part Of The Revenue In Filing This Appeal Is Accordingly Condoned & This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Being Disposed Off On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT, Ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Akkal Dhudewewala, Ld.AR

Section 254

…held that the said claim of the assessee for exemption was otherwise also not entertainable as the same was not made by the assessee either in the I.T Return or Revised Return as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). 4. The disallowance made by the AO on account of Industrial Promotion Allowance was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and keeping in view that similar claim of the assessee for exemption on account of Industrial Promotion Assistance was allowed by the Tribunal for the AYs 2008-09 to 2010-1…

DCIT RG 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4052/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Raptakos Brett & Co. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax- Range 5(3)(1), 253, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Mumbai - 400030 Worli, Vs. Mumbai - 400030 Pan: Aaacr1772R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Raptakos Brett & Company Income Tax – 5(3)(1), Limited, Room No. 519, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 21 A, Mittal Tower Free Press Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 20 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacr1772R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ronak Doshi (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2020

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)

Section 115JSection 143Section 14A

…law the Ld.CIT (A) was justified in allowing loss claimed on sale of Mutual Funds and Equity shares by submitting revise statement and by not revising return of income and ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC).” 2. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly directed the AO to exclude investment in growth schemes of Mutual Funds for the purpose of computing average investment for working disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. Since, we have dealt with this issue in assessee‟s appeal ITA No. 4151/Mum/2018…