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 Mantri Developers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 525/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15 M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited, #41, Mantri House, Dcit Circle – 4 (1) (2), Vittal Malya Road, Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560001 Pan : Aaacg4009N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Muzaffar Hussain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit (A) – 4 Bengaluru Dated 30.11.2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shree V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR

Section 234Section 36

…clude it from taxable income but since, this request of the assessee was without filing valid revised return of income, the AO did not accept it by following the Judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in 284 ITR 323 and learned CIT (A) also followed the same judgment and upheld the assessment order on this issue without deciding the issue on merit. He submitted that this judgment does not impinge upon the powers of CIT (A) and tribunal to decide the claim on merit in respect of claim made by the assessee without filing revised return. He submitted that this…

Jiten Bhavanji Vora, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 7(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6670/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Section 132Section 271A

…make such a claim. He however, accepted the assessee's claim on merits under section 80HHC of the Act. In appeal, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323/157 Taxman 1, such claims could not have been made without filing revised return. There is some ambiguity whether the Tribunal had allowed the assessee's claim under section 80-IB of the Act on merits also or not. Counsel for the assessees, however, clarified that in the case of Mitesh Implex since CIT(Appeals) had rejected the claim on merits, t…

Pr.Commissioner of vs. M/S Jeans Knit Pvt.Ltd

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/571/2016HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

…. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.', 328 ITR 400, 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE 11(1) VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD', 400 ITR 141, 'THERMAL CORPORATION VS. CIT', 229 ITR 383 and 'GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2006) 284 ITR 323. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has complied with the conditions mentioned in Section 10B of the Act and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal have rightly held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 10B of the Act. It is 16 further submi…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Jeans Knit Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/559/2015HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S Jeans Knit Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/580/2016HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

Broadcom Communication Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bijay Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92B(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.704/Bang/2016 Assessment year: 2011-12 LSI India Research & Development Vs. The Deputy Commissioner India Private Limited, of Income Tax, [Erstwhile Broadcom Communications Circle 4(1)(1) Technologies Private Ltd. since merged], [formerly Circle 1(2)(2)], S1, Wipro Electronic City, Bangalore – 560 095. Special Economic Zone, Doddathogur Village, Begur Hobli, Electronics City, Bangalore – 560 100. PAN: AAECM 1677N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Shara…

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7895/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 44C

…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. v. 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…

Bnp Paribas India Holding P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT -14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2020[2017-78]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2020AY 2017-78

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani , ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234BSection 234C

…he assessee‘s claim of deduction. Insofar the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited v. Commissioner of BNP Paribas India Holding P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT- 14(1)(1), Mumbai. 17 A.Y 2017-18 – ITA No. 1496/Mum/2020 Income-tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) was concerned, the Hon‘ble High court in its aforesaid order had observed, that even if a claim is not made before the assessing officer, it can be made before the appellate authorities. As regards the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain a claim that was not raised by the assessee in its return of income, the Hon‘ble High…

Msm Discovery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodmsm Discovery Private Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Interface Building No. 7, Tax-12(3)(2) 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Room No. 147B, 1St Floor, Vs. Malad (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai- 400 064 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aagcs4253E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…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…

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limitedoliver Wyman Limited -India Branch Office, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 1889/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 92C

…see had not claimed such error through a revised return and the Assessing Officer had no power to entertain such claim. It was submitted that therefore, in view of the settled judicial precedent in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), the action of Assessing Officer was valid in law. 5.0 Coming to the appeal of the Department, the Ld. Sr. DR argued that the sole issue in the Department’s appeal was the issue of Rs.70 Crores of service tax which had been paid by the assessee under protest and the Ld. DRP had erred in directing that the same was an allowable deduction u…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 1760/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 92C

Tristar Fashions, Mumbai vs. ACIT- 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3521/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh

Section 112Section 139(5)Section 50

…aforesaid claim of the assessee by observing that such claim having not been made in the original return of income or through a revised return of income cannot be entertained as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. v/s CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). While considering assessee’s appeal on the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) also 3 Tristar Fashions agreed with the aforesaid reasoning of the Assessing Officer and did not examine assessee’s claim on merits. 5. We have considered the submissions of learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. Undisputedly,…

ITO 2 (1)(3), Mumbai vs. Centrum Capital Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objection

ITA 497/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Ito – 2(1)(3) Centrum Capital Limited Room Ni. 553, 5Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Bombay Mutual Building, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Lalit Dehiya

Section 14Section 14A

…ssee has erroneously offered more income for taxation, the same cannot be a bar to the assessee in seeking remedy before the appellate forum. In this regard, we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that nothing in that order would prevent the ITAT in admitting an additional claim 5 ITA No. 497/Mum/2019 & CO No. 12/Mum/2020 Centrum Capital Limited which was raised for the first time without a revised return. Furthermore, we also note here the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fi…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 609/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…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…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 467/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

M/S Fiserv India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 333/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…t neither the assessee has claimed such deduction in its return of income nor the return of income was revised but the same has been claimed in the computation of income. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd 284 ITR 323, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of donation and completed the assessment proceedings. 20. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee, at the very outset, stated that in so far as forex gain is concerned, the claim that it is part of operating income has been settled in the favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the…

Sony Pictures Networks India P.Ltd(Successor of Msm Discovery Private Limited), Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6630/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 6630/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2014-15) Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited (Successor Of Msm Discovery Private Limited) Interface Building No.7, 5Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064 Pan:Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-12(3)(2), 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jahangir Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, CIT -DR

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…itted and allowed would result in an assessment of income less than the returned income. This is impermissible. To support his contention, the ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323(SC). The ld.Departmental Representative further placed reliance on CBDT Circular explaining the Finance Act, 1987. As regards the fact that the ground raised by the assessee in the present appeal have been considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2013-14, the ld.Departmental Representative fairly admitted that all the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metal One Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2245/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

For Appellant: Sh. Shatavik Chakrborty, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

…basis to value goodwill at Rs. 6,09,00,000/- ? 6. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in allowing depreciation on goodwill by ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 as well as the findings of fact recorded by the AO in the remand report? 7. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowance of market to market foreign exchange loss of Rs. 18,26,173/- and allowing depreciation on non-existent goodwill by accepting additions evidence and self-serving cl…

DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi vs. Metal One Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6101/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Baranwal, Sr. DR

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-2’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. Metal One Corporation India Pvt Ltd 5th Floor, Birla Tower, Circle - 16(2) New Delhi. 25, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi PAN : AAFCM 1225 R [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 27.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2020 Assessee by : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Adv Revenue by : Shri Baranwal, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the Revenue is prefe…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…disputedly eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Therefore, apparently the loss of Badi Unit No. 2 went to reduce the eligible profit of Badi Unit No. 1 of Rs. 4488012/-. The ld AO disallowed the claim in view of decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in 284 ITR 323 wherein, it has been held that no claim can be entertained by the ld AO without having revised return filed by the assessee. Thus, the claim of the assessee for higher deduction u/s 80IC was not accepted. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the ld AO preferred an appeal before the ld CIT (A) who also confirmed the action of the ld AO. Theref…