Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

…n the respective area of other countries, therefore, provisions of section 40(a)(ii) shall apply and as the assessee has not claimed any relief u/s 90/91, the same cannot be granted in terms of judgment by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Goetz (I) Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). 10.2 Aggrieved with the aforesaid findings of Ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has also coincided with 23 ITA No. 3157/MUM/2012, ITA No. 4109/MUM/2012 ITA No.5690/MUM/2015 & CO No. 144/MUM/2016 the findings of Ld. AO and has dismissed the contentions of the assessee and have observed that the…

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

…n the respective area of other countries, therefore, provisions of section 40(a)(ii) shall apply and as the assessee has not claimed any relief u/s 90/91, the same cannot be granted in terms of judgment by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Goetz (I) Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). 10.2 Aggrieved with the aforesaid findings of Ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has also coincided with 23 ITA No. 3157/MUM/2012, ITA No. 4109/MUM/2012 ITA No.5690/MUM/2015 & CO No. 144/MUM/2016 the findings of Ld. AO and has dismissed the contentions of the assessee and have observed that the…

Raheja Sherwood Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. Raheja Sherwood Ito Ward 41 (4) (3), Cooperative Housing Society C41-43, G Block Bkc, Ltd., Gilban Area, Nirlon Compound, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Western Express Highway, Bandra East, Goregaon East, Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400063. Pan: Aabtr1763L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Kinjal Bhuta, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Had Declared Its Total Income At Rs.38,15,171/- & Claimed The Deduction Of Rs. Rs.35,10,843/- U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act, By Filing Its Return Of Income For The A.Y Under Consideration On Dated 09/01/2021, Which Was Subsequently Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Resulted Into Assessing The Income Of The Assessee To The Rs.17,16,067/- While Disallowing Of Deduction Claimed U/S 2 M/S. Raheja Sherwood Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s. Raheja Sherwood ITO Ward 41 (4) (3), Cooperative Housing Society C41-43, G Block BKC, Ltd., Gilban Area, Nirlon Compound, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Western Express Highway, Bandra East, Goregaon East, Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400063. PAN: AABTR1763L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Kinjal Bhuta, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender…

DCIT, Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…t of acquisition for computing short-term capital gains, when such claim was not made in the original return of income nor through a revised return, in contravention of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC)? iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction in respect of proportionate premium paid on leasehold land without appreciating the fact that the same constitutes capital expenditure and the claim has not been made in original return filed? v) Whether, on the fac…

Ramesh Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…ional claim made by the assessee. The rejection was twofold: first, on the technical ground that an additional claim could not be entertained without a revised return, relying upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC); and second, on merits, holding that the assessee‟s contention was unfounded and that the computation mechanism under section 55(2)(ac) was workable. 9. The reasons given by the ld. AO for the sake of ready reference is reproduced hereunder:- “10. The reasoning given is absurd as Polycab Limited was an unlisted entity and the shares held in…

Sky High II Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…iction of entertaining a claim otherwise than by way of valid return shall not apply to appellate authorities. Reliance in this regard is Sky High Lxxix Leasing Co. Ltd. & Ors. placed on the Apex Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. V. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 63. It is submitted that there is no estoppel against law, the purpose of an appeal in an income tax matter is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee. Hence, even if the assessee has over assessed itself in the return of income, the Tribunal can give relief to the assessee to the assessee is over assessed. Reliance in this…

Sky High Lxxx Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…iction of entertaining a claim otherwise than by way of valid return shall not apply to appellate authorities. Reliance in this regard is Sky High Lxxix Leasing Co. Ltd. & Ors. placed on the Apex Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. V. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 63. It is submitted that there is no estoppel against law, the purpose of an appeal in an income tax matter is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee. Hence, even if the assessee has over assessed itself in the return of income, the Tribunal can give relief to the assessee to the assessee is over assessed. Reliance in this…

Sky High Lxxviii Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…iction of entertaining a claim otherwise than by way of valid return shall not apply to appellate authorities. Reliance in this regard is Sky High Lxxix Leasing Co. Ltd. & Ors. placed on the Apex Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. V. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 63. It is submitted that there is no estoppel against law, the purpose of an appeal in an income tax matter is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee. Hence, even if the assessee has over assessed itself in the return of income, the Tribunal can give relief to the assessee to the assessee is over assessed. Reliance in this…

Sky High Lxxix Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…iction of entertaining a claim otherwise than by way of valid return shall not apply to appellate authorities. Reliance in this regard is Sky High Lxxix Leasing Co. Ltd. & Ors. placed on the Apex Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. V. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 63. It is submitted that there is no estoppel against law, the purpose of an appeal in an income tax matter is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee. Hence, even if the assessee has over assessed itself in the return of income, the Tribunal can give relief to the assessee to the assessee is over assessed. Reliance in this…