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 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

Bantec Tps India P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2074/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 2074/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13) M/S.Banc Tec Tps India Pvt. Ltd. Tribunal-341, Tower 3, 4Th Floor, International Infotech Park, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 Pan: Aaact8971E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle.15(1)(2) Mumbai ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry Sr. Advocate with Ms. Urvi MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Section 143(3)

…ee had never claimed additional deprecation in the return of income. The claim of depreciation on goodwill was raised for first time during the course of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze (India) Limited vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323(SC) has held that the Assessing Officer has no power to accept the claim not made in the return of income. 7. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The grounds No.1 to 8 of the appeal are in respect of TP adjustment. The ld. Counsel for the assessee while making submissions on these g…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sova Ispat Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2520/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e assessee's claim for treating the subsidy in the nature of capital receipt is therefore not accepted. Further, any claim not made through I.T. Return or Revised Return, same is not allowable by AO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. in 284 ITR 323, confirmed this decision. 8 SovaIspat Limited,AY- 2010-11 Therefore, fresh claim of reducing the amount in computation furnished with return is not accepted . 4.1. The assessee explained before the ld CITA as below:- "5.1 The next ground raises the contention that industrial promotion assistance of Rs.4,01,64,232/- received from the West Benga…

DCIT/ACIT, Ltu-1, Kolkata vs. M/S. United Bank of India, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 806/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata........................................................................................Appellant 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. United Bank Of India……………………………………………………............................Respondent 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 806/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. United Bank Of India…………………………………………………….......................Cross-Objector 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata....................................................................................Respondent 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Shri I. Jamir, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 17, Kolkata Dated 22.12.2016 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In Its Appeal Read As Under:

Section 115JSection 1ISection 2(5)Section 211

…)/remand report 2016-17 dated 27.06.2016 in which the AO stated that assessee has not claimed the said expenses either in the original or in the revised return and submitted that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 and Gurjargravurs Pvt. Ltd. 111 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that if claim is not made before the AO, the AAC cannot entertain such claim in the appeal proceedings. The AO stated that the assessment order was passed after giving reasonable and adequate opportunities to the assessee and therefore requested to uphold the disallowance. 19. The Ld.…

M/S Kandhari Infrastructures Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals are of the assessee are treated as allowed,

ITA 197/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH , CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 194 to 197/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys : 2009-10 to 2012-13 M/s Kandhari Infrastructure Private The ACIT, Circle-2(1), बनाम Limited, 177-F, Industrial Area, Chandigarh Phase-1, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACCK7075L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & S.A. Nos. 13 to 16/CHD/2020 In ITA No. 194 to 197/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys : 2009-10 to…

M/S Kandhari Infrastructures Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals are of the assessee are treated as allowed,

ITA 194/CHANDI/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH , CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 194 to 197/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys : 2009-10 to 2012-13 M/s Kandhari Infrastructure Private The ACIT, Circle-2(1), बनाम Limited, 177-F, Industrial Area, Chandigarh Phase-1, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACCK7075L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & S.A. Nos. 13 to 16/CHD/2020 In ITA No. 194 to 197/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys : 2009-10 to…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 140/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

…letter before Assessing Officer to rectify claim and to provide depreciation at the rate of 80%.The Assessing Officer rejected this claim purportedly following the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd.'s case (2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC)/[2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC)/[2006] 204 CTR 182 (SC) by stating that a fresh claim cannot be made by assessee other than by filing a revised return. The claim of the assessee was allowed at the first appeal stage and on appeal by the Revenue the Tribunal held that the assessee was not making a fresh claim before Assessing Authority; In fact, assessee had made a claim…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 139/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

…letter before Assessing Officer to rectify claim and to provide depreciation at the rate of 80%.The Assessing Officer rejected this claim purportedly following the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd.'s case (2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC)/[2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC)/[2006] 204 CTR 182 (SC) by stating that a fresh claim cannot be made by assessee other than by filing a revised return. The claim of the assessee was allowed at the first appeal stage and on appeal by the Revenue the Tribunal held that the assessee was not making a fresh claim before Assessing Authority; In fact, assessee had made a claim…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 547/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

…letter before Assessing Officer to rectify claim and to provide depreciation at the rate of 80%.The Assessing Officer rejected this claim purportedly following the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd.'s case (2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC)/[2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC)/[2006] 204 CTR 182 (SC) by stating that a fresh claim cannot be made by assessee other than by filing a revised return. The claim of the assessee was allowed at the first appeal stage and on appeal by the Revenue the Tribunal held that the assessee was not making a fresh claim before Assessing Authority; In fact, assessee had made a claim…

ITO (Exemption), Udaipur vs. M/S. Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, Chittorgarh

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 54/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 80G

…rucial fact that the assessee neither filed a return original or revised, claiming exemption u/s 10(23C) (iiiac) nor claimed such exemption in the course of assessment proceedings & hence, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323, the claim of the assessee U/s 10(23C)(iiiac) is not sustainable. 2 ITA 54/Jodh/2019 ITO Vs M/s Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society 2. Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be framed before the Hon’ble Tribunal in the interest of justice." 2. No body appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite…

Wns Global Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2257/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay & Smt. Kavita Kaushik
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 92C

…sses company that the principle of consistency should have been followed by the AO, the DRP has noted that such a claim has not been accepted by the assessee company in the earlier year and is being contested. Even legally, in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. Accordingly, no directions are given to the AO/ TPO on this issue.” 31 WNS Global Services Private Limited 38. T…

Wns Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1955/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay & Smt. Kavita Kaushik
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 92C

…sses company that the principle of consistency should have been followed by the AO, the DRP has noted that such a claim has not been accepted by the assessee company in the earlier year and is being contested. Even legally, in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. Accordingly, no directions are given to the AO/ TPO on this issue.” 31 WNS Global Services Private Limited 38. T…

ITO 21 (1) (5), Mumbai vs. Janseva Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Mumbai

In the result, ground 1 of assessee’s appeal is allowed and

ITA 5881/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S Rifaur Rahman (Am) Ito 21(1)(5), Room No. Vs M/S Janseva Majoor Sahakari 120, 1Stfloor, Piramal Sanstha Maryadit, Chambers, Parel, 1, Dev Darshan, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400016 In Front Of Wakade House T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Pan : Aadfj0626J Appellant Respondednt M/S Janseva Majoor Sahakari Vs Ito 21(1)(5), Room No. 120, 1Stfloor, Piramal Sanstha Maryadit, 1, Dev Darshan, Ground Floor, Chambers, Parel, In Front Of Wakade House Mumbai-400016 T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Pan : Aadfj0626J Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(vi)

…P was not admitted on the ground that no deduction u/s 80P was claimed by the assessee in the return of income and no new claim can be made by the assessee without filing revised return of income as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze Ltd 284 ITR 323 (SC). On further appeal Tribunal the case was restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh, vide order dated 23-07-2014 in ITA No.2300/Mum/2013, by holding as under:- " The A.O. has disallowed Labour charges of which no tax was deducted at source in summary manner without giving any specific finding or pointing out how t…

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

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 4136/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4136/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4137/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd. Dcit–Circle-5(3)(2) बनाम/ Room No.518, 5Th Floor 10-A, Bakhtawar Nariman Point Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4127-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4743/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4742/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit–Circle-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd. Room No.518, 5Th Floor बनाम/ 10-A, Bakhtawar Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4127-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/01/2010 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115VSection 14Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…isions as well as while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB. However, Ld. AO refused to consider the same in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Goetz India M/s. Tolani Shipping Company Limited Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ltd. V/s CIT 284 ITR 323 which mandate the assessee to claim deduction by filing a revised return only. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee contested the action of Ld.AO before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 10/04/2017 which is common order for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13. Regarding submissions that no disallowance could be made u/s 14A when the income was computed on deemed bas…

Kiran Raju Talwar, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 24, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2406/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2009-10
Section 143(1)Section 263

…urn, the Assessing Officer did not have powers to grant the same unless it is done by way of revising the income tax return. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT [(2007) 284 ITR 323 (SC)]. Learned PCIT also referred to Hon’ble Assessment year: 2014-15 Page 3 of 5 Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (Pvt)Ltd [(1992) 198 ITR 297(SC)] in support of the proposition that when an item unconnected with the escapement of income has been concluded against the assessee, it is not open to the assessee t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 6(3)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri. Sandeep Bhujanga Shetty, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1068/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT – DRFor Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, C A
Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 1068/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015 – 16 Asst. Commissioner of Shri. Sandeep Bhujanga Income Tax, Shetty, Circle – 6(3) (1), No – B, SNS Chambers, Room No. 438, 4th Floor, Vs. 274, Sankey Road, BMTC Building, Sadashivanagar, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 080. Bengaluru – 560 095. PAN NO : AACPS 9801 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT & ITA 1070/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015 – 16 Shri. Sandeep B Shetty, Asst. Commissioner of No – 13, SNS Chambers, Income Tax, 274, Sankey Ro…

Smt Suryakala P Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25 (3), Mumbai

ITA 7394/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos. 7394 & 7395/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekhar &For Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54E

…ITA Nos. 7394 & 7495/Mum/2019 AY: 2011-12 Smt. Suryakala P Shah Vs. ACIT -25(3) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 7394 & 7395/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year:2011-12) Smt. Suryakala P Shah ACIT – 25(3) L/H of Late Shri Prabhulal G Shah 2nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Plot No. 17, Prabhu-Vijay, BKC, Mumbai, Kapol Co-op Hsg Society VL Mehta Road, Vs. Maharashtra - 400051 JVPD Scheme Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400049 PAN – BAHPS9791N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri V. Chandrashekhar & Shri H…

Srf Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant- assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5784/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…Securities Ltd [2014- 360-ITR-682 (Del)] and MIT Mohan Singh v DCIT [2013-155-TTJ-1-Chd] prayed that a legal claim can be made at the time of during assessment proceedings. The DRP also did not entertain the claim relying on the Goetze (India) Limited vs CIT 284 ITR 323. 20. In assessee’s appeal for AY 2010-11 (ITA no. 356/Del/15) we have dealt this issue of admission of additional claims. In the said case for AY 2010-11, we had relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NTPC Ltd [229 ITR 383 (1998)] and other judgments holding that tribunal’s power are wide enough to admit any additional claim/…

Raffles Residency Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2877/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Raffles Residency Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, #54, The Planet, Whitefield Main Circle – 5(1)(1), Road, Whitefield, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 056. Pan : Aafcr 0615 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sumeet Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250

…learned Assessing Officer (`AO'). 2.4 That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not granting the deduction of expenditure of INR 1,19,20,677 based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) without appreciating the fact that the said decision was in context of powers of the AO and did not place any limitation on the powers of the CIT(A). 3. In the course of hearing, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that it is observed by learned CIT(A) in para 6.1 of his order that the additional claim cannot be made before AO ot…

Schindler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7808/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanschindler India Private Limtied, 401-B, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan: Aaecs 1548J ...... Appellant

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Nishant ShahFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Section 143(3)

…n of income. The assessee made claim for the first time before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the claim was rightly rejected by the Assessing Officer in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT reported as 284 ITR 323 (SC). 6 5. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee controverting the submissions of ld. Departmental Representative in respect of Ground No.3 fairly admitted that the claim was made for the first time before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer may not have jurisdiction to entertain fresh claim i…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Renault Nissan Technology & Business Centre Indai Private Limited, Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 187/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. S. Ramakrishnan, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.182/CHNY/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013 M/s. Renault Nissan Technology & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Business Centre India Private Ltd, Income Tax, Ascendas IT park, Corporate Circle 5(1) Mahindra World City SEZ, Chennai. TP 2/1, Natham Sub Post Officer, Kanchipuram Dist. Tamil Nadu 603 004. आयकर अपील सं./…