Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

Chirag J. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle- 19 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatha

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N.PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6520 & 6521/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12) Mr.Chirag J Mehta Vs. ACIT,Circle-19(2) (Proprietor of Navpad Chemicals) Piramal Chambers 103A, Nadia Apartment, Lalbaug, Parel 10th Road Mumbai-400 012 T.P.S. III, Santacruz (East) Mumbai-400 055 PAN/GIR No.AGKPM6888Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Ishwer Prakash Rathi & Ms. Pramita Ishwer Rathi, AR’s Revenue by Shri. Kumar Padmapani Bora, DR Date of Hearing 13/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement 14/…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

…disallowed the claim of the assessee considering that the provision is merely a contingent liability 124 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 and further relying the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) denied the claim as the claim is made only in the note to the return. The CIT(A) allowed the claim by observing as under:- “20.3 I have considered the appellant's submissions. In this case Bank adopted the Employees Share Purchase Scheme as per the approval of Central Government and accordingly approved the offer of 86,17,500 equity shares…

Income Tax Officer-23(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Corporate Loan Securities Trust 2008 Series 14, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM The ITO-23(1)(2) Vs. M/s. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road IL & FS Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No. AAAT16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The ITO-23(1)(2) Vs. M/s. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series III Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road IL & FS Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumba…

Il & Fs Windfarms Lat ( Previously Known As Il & Fs Energy Dev. Co.Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shir S Rifaur Rahmanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6133 & 6134/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08

…sessee has filed revised return within the period of limitation as prescribed under the provisions of the Sec. 139(5). Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 284 ITR 323, we are of the considered view that the assessee can raise fresh claim in the revised return. Accordingly, this issue relating to the filing of revised return is decided in favour of the assessee. 8 Now, we turn to the allowability of the claim of deduction u/s 80IA on interest income. The CIT(A) has considered and adjudicated the issue by follow…

Suman Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO-26(3)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon’Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 4240/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Suman Agarwal……...........…...…………..….................................................................................Appellant 103, Agarwal Ashram, M.N. Patankar Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai – 400 070. [Pan: Akapa 0022 A] Vs. Ito – 26(3)(3), Mumbai……………….......…..…………………....…..........................................Respondent Mumbai. Appearances By: Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Akhtar H Ansari, Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2020 Order

…remaining amount. Upon assessee’s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s action regarding denial of claim of section 54F on the ground that revised return was not filed on the touch-stone of Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze (I) Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 323 (Supreme Court). Regarding addition on account of gold jewellery sale, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s action. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the records. As regards denial of claim of section 54F is concerned, we note that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (I) Ltd. (sup…

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Svc Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

…m of the assessee and allowed the same by following the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336) which was rendered after considering the ratio laid down in Goetz (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323). Aggrieved, the revenue is under further appeal before us. 4. We have carefully heard the rival submission and considered the material on record. It is discernible from the factual matrix as enumerated in preceding paragraphs that the assessee had already made a claim u/s 36(1)(vii) while filing the original return of income. However, the said c…

Deepa Sachin Sankhe, Thane vs. ITO WD 1, Palghar

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deepa Sachin Sankhe Income Tax Officer, Ward- C/O M N Nandgaonkar, Vs. 1, Bidco Road, Palghar Chartered Accountant, West-401608. 1, Chandralok, Veer Savarkarm Marg, Tembhi Naka, Thane West-400601. Pan No. Awdps2312J Appellant Respondent

…o the assessee to which it was otherwise entitled even though no claim was made by the assessee in its return of income. The above decision was rendered after the decision of the Deepa Sachin Sankhe 7 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). Similarly, in CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that even assuming that the Assessing Officer is not entitled to grant a deduction on the basis of a letter requesting an amendment to the return filed, the Appellate Authorities are entitled to consider the claim a…

Income Tax Officer 17(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Narshi Nenshi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…in respect of expenses/debts which were not claimed in the return of income. 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the additional ground following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Goetze ruling [284 ITR 323]. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of the CIT v. Prudvi 9 ITA No. 6202/MUM/2017, ITA No. 1157 & 1169/MUM/2018 C.O. No. 131, 54/MUM/2019 & C.O. No. 323/MUM/2018 M/s. Narshi Nenshi & Sons Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd [349 ITR 396], Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground raised…

Income Tax Officer 17(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Narshi Nenshi & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…in respect of expenses/debts which were not claimed in the return of income. 13. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the additional ground following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Goetze ruling [284 ITR 323]. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of the CIT v. Prudvi 9 ITA No. 6202/MUM/2017, ITA No. 1157 & 1169/MUM/2018 C.O. No. 131, 54/MUM/2019 & C.O. No. 323/MUM/2018 M/s. Narshi Nenshi & Sons Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd [349 ITR 396], Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additional ground raised…