Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Gilbarco Veeder India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

…At the same time, it claimed certain depreciation on goodwill in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (24 taxmann.com 222) However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. V/s CIT (284 ITR 323), Ld. AO refused to admit the same since the claim was made after expiry of time allowed for filing of revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act and the assessee had not claimed the same by way of filing revised return of income. 4.3 The learned CIT(A) opined that the claim not made in the return of income could be made before appellate auth…

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Gilbarco Veeder India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

…At the same time, it claimed certain depreciation on goodwill in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (24 taxmann.com 222) However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. V/s CIT (284 ITR 323), Ld. AO refused to admit the same since the claim was made after expiry of time allowed for filing of revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act and the assessee had not claimed the same by way of filing revised return of income. 4.3 The learned CIT(A) opined that the claim not made in the return of income could be made before appellate auth…

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Gilbarco Veeder India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

…At the same time, it claimed certain depreciation on goodwill in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (24 taxmann.com 222) However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. V/s CIT (284 ITR 323), Ld. AO refused to admit the same since the claim was made after expiry of time allowed for filing of revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act and the assessee had not claimed the same by way of filing revised return of income. 4.3 The learned CIT(A) opined that the claim not made in the return of income could be made before appellate auth…

Hdfc Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Hdfc Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Hdfc Bank House, Income Tax – 2(3) Room No.615, 6Th Floor Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 013 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2702H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assistant Commissioner Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Of Income Tax – 2(3) Hdfc Bank House, Room No.615, 6Th Floor Senapati Bapat Marg Aayakar Bhavan Lower Parel, M.K. Road, Mumbai - Mumbai – 400 013 400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2702H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…ng the course of assessment proceedings along with a copy of the computation of income thereof. The ld. AO did not give cognizance to this letter by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 and did not give any deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act towards provision for bad and doubtful debts in the assessment. The ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. AO to grant deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act after verification of the full details submitted by the assessee before him. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee would be eligible…

Hexaware Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 1861/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) M/S. Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Unit No.152, Block –A, Sector -3, Millenium Business Park, Ttc Industrial Area, Mahape, Navi Mumbai 400 701 Pan: Aabca3203F ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

…under section 80JJAA of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected assessee’s claim not made in the return of income/revised return of income in the light of decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, reported as 284 ITR 323(SC). Aggrieved by the order dated 20/08/2015 passed under section 154 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The first appellate authority dismissed assessee’s appeal primarily on the ground that the appeal against the order passed u/s 154 of the Act for claiming deduction u/s 80 JJAA is not appropriate remedy. The assessee sho…

Voltas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Voltas Limited Asst. Cit Range-8(3)(2) Voltas House-A, 4Th Floor, Vs. Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai 400 033 Pan No. Aaacv2809D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-8(3)(2) Voltas Limited R. No.615, 6Th Floor, Vs. Voltas House-A, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400 033 Pan No. Aaacv2809 Appellant Respondent

…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…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(2)2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Sa No.462/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1449/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Sa No.461/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7382/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…ome a sum of Rs.3,33,56,000/- on the pretext that the said claim was not made by the assessee company in the return of income. The ld. AO in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. DRP. We find that the claim of the assessee deserves to be accepted in view of the narration of the aforesaid facts which remain undisputed. In any case, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd., in 284 ITR 323 does not apply to appellate authorities especially the Tribunal, which…