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 367,368 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

I.T.O. 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

ITA 6202/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik
Section 78(2)

…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…

ACIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Engineering & Electronics Ltd. (Formerly Blue Star Electro Mechanical Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6412/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 5242/Mum/2017 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Blue Star Engineering & Income Tax-1(1)(1), Electronics Ltd. 579, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. (Formerly M/S Blue Star Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Electro Mechanical Limited) Kasturi Building, Mohan T. Vs. Advani Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaecb1558M

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DRFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, AR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…11,308/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the above claim of the assessee made during the assessment proceedings cannot be allowed in term of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and hence, the claim of deduction was disallowed in the absence of revise return of income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) admitted the claim of the assessee and decided in favour of the assessee by observing in Para 7.9 and 7.10 as under: - “7.9 I have carefully considered the submission made by the appel…

Hcl Comnet Systems and Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3221/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlashri N.K. Billaiya[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…sessment Year under which the revenue has been offered to tax. The Assessing Officer further observed that the additional TDS was not claimed in the original return of income and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz 284 ITR 223. The Assessing Officer denied the claim of additional TDS. 20. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 21. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the provisions of section 199(3) of the Act and further drew our attention to Rule 37BA(3)(ii) and stated that according to the prov…

Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1339/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1338 & 1339/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust, The Income Tax Officer, 655/20 & 600, Jagilkathirampatti Vs. Exemptions Ward, Village & Post, Pochampalli Taluk, Salem. Krishnagiri District 635 206. [Pan:Aaits5220J ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, Both Dated 25.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed Against The Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Under Section 154 Of The Act. Against The Order Under Section 154 Of The Act, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Holding That Non-Allowance Of Expenditure Incurred To Earn Gross Receipts From A College & School Involves A Complex & Debatable Legal Issue.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

…ermitted by section 139(4) of the Act and thus, the ld. CIT(A) has erroneously held that the assessee has not filed its return of income in time but filed only a belated return is not correct. By relying on the decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 and other case law, the ld. Counsel prayed for admitting the claim by the appellate authority. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that as on the date of filing of return on 18.01.2014, the assessee has no registration under section 12AA of the Act. It was further submission that the assessee has not even filed Form 10A applying for r…

Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1338/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1338 & 1339/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust, The Income Tax Officer, 655/20 & 600, Jagilkathirampatti Vs. Exemptions Ward, Village & Post, Pochampalli Taluk, Salem. Krishnagiri District 635 206. [Pan:Aaits5220J ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, Both Dated 25.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed Against The Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Under Section 154 Of The Act. Against The Order Under Section 154 Of The Act, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Holding That Non-Allowance Of Expenditure Incurred To Earn Gross Receipts From A College & School Involves A Complex & Debatable Legal Issue.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

…ermitted by section 139(4) of the Act and thus, the ld. CIT(A) has erroneously held that the assessee has not filed its return of income in time but filed only a belated return is not correct. By relying on the decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 and other case law, the ld. Counsel prayed for admitting the claim by the appellate authority. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that as on the date of filing of return on 18.01.2014, the assessee has no registration under section 12AA of the Act. It was further submission that the assessee has not even filed Form 10A applying for r…

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 606/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 605 & 606/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja Centre Air India Building, 19th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 21 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 21 PAN: AACCP7995G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NOs. 1476 & 1479/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy Commissioner of Income Tax M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja C…

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 605/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 605 & 606/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja Centre Air India Building, 19th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 21 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 21 PAN: AACCP7995G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NOs. 1476 & 1479/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy Commissioner of Income Tax M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja C…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1479/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 605 & 606/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja Centre Air India Building, 19th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 21 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 21 PAN: AACCP7995G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NOs. 1476 & 1479/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy Commissioner of Income Tax M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja C…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1476/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 605 & 606/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja Centre Air India Building, 19th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 21 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 21 PAN: AACCP7995G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NOs. 1476 & 1479/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy Commissioner of Income Tax M/s. Mentor Capital Limited v. Central Circle– 3(3) 713, Raheja C…

M/S Incap Contract Manufacturing Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 697/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhit(Tp)A No.697/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.697/Bang/2017 Assessment year: 2012-13 M/s. Incap Contract Manufacturing Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Services Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, Sufiya Elite, 3rd Floor, Circle 3(1)(1), No.18, Cunningham Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 052. PAN: AABCI 6651H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2019 O R D E R Per…

Caprihans India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dccc -36, Mumbai

ITA 4252/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos. 4252 To 4254/Mum/2011 (Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2007-08) M/S Caprihans India Ltd. Dy. Cit Central Circl-36 Block-D, Shivsagar Estate, Mumbai. Vs. Dr. A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Pan – Aaacc1646F (Appellant) (Respondent) The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M/S Caprihans India Ltd. Central Circle-36, Room No.11, Block-D, Shivsagar Estate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Dr. Annie Besant Road,Worli, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai- 400 018 Pan – Aaacc1646F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Murlidhar, A.R Respondent By: Shri Awungshi Gimson, D.R Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2019 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Assessee & The Revenue Being Aggrieved With The Order Passed By The Cit(A)- 41, Mumbai, Dated 31.12.2009 For A.Y. 2005-06 Have Preferred Cross-Appeals Before Us. Also, The Assessee Is In Appeal Against The Respective Orders Of The Cit(A)-41 For A.Y. 2006-07 & A.Y. 2007-08, Both Dated 31.12.2009. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned

For Appellant: Shri R. Murlidhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson, D.R
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(1)Section 153C

…it was a capital receipt could not entertained since the said amount was offered to tax in the return by the assessee and since no revised return was filed, the claim could not be allowed in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd. [284 ITR 323]. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 9. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of development/construction activity and manufacturing of rigid and flexible PVC films etc., had filed its return of income for A.Y 2005-06 on 16.10.2006, declaring its total…

M/S.Allianz Cornhill Information Services P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. Jtcit, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 191/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 10BSection 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

…eduction u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act. 13.1 The facts of the issue are that the Assessing Officer rejected the alternate claim of granting deduction u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited (284 ITR 323). The 20 & 185/Coch/2015 Assessing Officer further held that the alternate claim is only possible through filing of return and not in the course of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer rejected the alternate claim on the ground that the assessee was claiming exemption under a different section of the Act. 13.2 On appeal, the DRP rel…

The Jt CIT, Trivandrum vs. Allianz Cornhill Information Services P. Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 185/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 10BSection 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

…eduction u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act. 13.1 The facts of the issue are that the Assessing Officer rejected the alternate claim of granting deduction u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited (284 ITR 323). The 20 & 185/Coch/2015 Assessing Officer further held that the alternate claim is only possible through filing of return and not in the course of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer rejected the alternate claim on the ground that the assessee was claiming exemption under a different section of the Act. 13.2 On appeal, the DRP rel…

Dhl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1030/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Sooddhl Logistics Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 201A,Silver Utopia, Income Tax Circle 9(3)(1), Cardinal Gracias Road, Mumbai Vs. Chakala, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 059 Pan – Aaacm6824H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan &
Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)Section 92D

…es (i.e goodwill) on the basis of a revised computation of income in A.Y. 2008-09, therefore, the A.O had declined the same, for the reason, that that in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) the assessee was not entitled for raising of such fresh claim on the basis of a revised computation. On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the assesses claim for depreciation on the intangible assets (i.e goodwill). Further, the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal of the revenue for A.Y 2008-09, vide its order i.e Dy. CIT (OSD), Range-8(1), Mumb…

Suresh Ramkrishna Bhatmule, Thane vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (1), Nashik

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

ITA 835/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Sachin Y. Jawale
Section 54F

…ised computation of income. For filing the revised Return of Income, the assessee did not have time to revised the original return before the Assessing Officer in accordance with judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetzee (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 204 CTR 182 (SC). Bringing my attention to ground no.2 and 3 of the appeal raised before me, ld. Counsel mentioned that such judgment is in favour of adjudication of such legal issue raised for the first time before the Appellate Authority such as CIT(A) and ITAT. 5. On hearing both the sides on this alternative grounds, I am of the opinion that the said gro…

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bip Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1366/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1366/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Cir-2(1) Kolkata......................................………………………….................................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. Bip Developers Pvt. Ltd.........................................................................................Respondent Ground Floor, Building Beta Bengal Intelligent Park, Block-Ep & Gp, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan: Aabcb 6203 A] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca & Shri Saurabh Gupta, Aca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 14, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtp, Vice-(Kz)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…the same was not made by the assessee company either in the return of income originally filed or by way of filing the revised return. To arrive at this conclusion, the AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). 4. Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and in support of its claim 3 I.T.A. No. 1366/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. BIP Developers Pvt. Ltd. for deduction on account of interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 3,60,72,409/-, the following submissions were made on…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1590/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…is that he CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee’s revised computation. Learned departmental representative quotes hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in Gooteze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) that such a claim; not accompanied by a revised return before the Assessing Officer, is not liable to be accepted. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance. Their lordships hold in the above stated case law itself that the same nowhere impinges upon the jurisdiction of appellate authority(ies) to entertain such a clai…

ACIT, Ltu - 2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Uco Bank, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 584/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 40

…(a)(ia) inadvertently and the same should be allowed as deduction. Since this claim was not made by the assessee in the return of income, the Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Limited reported in 284 ITR 323 and did not entertain the claim of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) not only entertained the claim of the assessee but also deleted the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) by following the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of DCIT –vs.- S.K. Tekriwal (361 ITR 432), wherein it was held that if there is any short…

The ACIT, Cir-1(1), Trivandrum vs. M/S.Us Technology International P. Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

ITA 514/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 253(2)

…appellate authority, where as a claim for deduction u/s. 10B was already mad ein the return of income. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) ought to have followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze(India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323) wherein it was held that an additional claim for deduction not made in the return of income cannot be entertained otherwise than by filing a valid revised return. 4. The appeal filed by the Department, involving similar question is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of appellant for AY 2007- 08 and also in the following…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi vs. Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5026/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…claim in the return of income and the DRP did not adjudicate the same as no claim was made in return of income. The Assessing Officer also in the final assessment order applied the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 29. The Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out that the depreciation was claimed in the accounts from Assessment Year 2008-09; but in terms of income tax, no such claim was made. The Ld.AR for the assessee further pointed out that ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd.(supra) has been explained by Hon’ble Delhi Hig…