How many judgments cite Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT?

1,842 judgments on BharatTax cite Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 153A.

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 14A Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 153A Section 143(1)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 139(5)book profits section 115j revenue expenditure section 115jb capital expenditure disallowance under section 14a section 32 section 254 section 37(1)transfer pricing adjustment liable to tax

Judgments citing Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune vs. Dnyanoba Shivram Bhintade, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1618/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Vudal Raj Singh

Section 143(3)Section 54B

…the assessee in the return of income nor has filed the revised return. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is not correct in ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Goetze India Pvt. Ltd., 284 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it has been held that such claim can only be allowed when the assessee filed a revised return. 3. For this and such other reasons as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. All the grounds being inter-connected are considered together. 4. During…

Vishnubhai Mafatbhai Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2849/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2849/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri S. V. Agrawal, A.R

Section 2(14)Section 49(4)Section 50CSection 54BSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…sponding amount of addition so made by the assessing officer may please be allowed and cost of capital asset should be increased while computing capital gain, quoting judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Goetz (India) Limited vs. CIT 284 ITR 223 as there is no relation of amendment in Income Tax Return but to give the effect of deeming fiction in claim of exemption while determining computation of capital gain and the judgment relates to only "deduction" and not "exemption", being ground no. 3; vii. The assessing officer had relied upon aforesaid judgment which is clearly not suitable in…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ichalkranji Circle, Ichalkranji vs. Ichalkranji Textile Common Effluent Tratment Plant Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1560/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu

Section 25Section 80I

…5. Shri N. Ashok Babu representing the Department vehemently defended the action of Assessing Officer in rejecting assessee’s claim. The ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 284 ITR 323 has held that the Assessing Officer has no power to entertain any claim of assessee except the claim made in return of income or revised return of income. The assessee made fresh claim of exemption on principle of mutuality by filing a letter during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer has no power to entertain the claim which was neithe…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik vs. Mss India Private Limited, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1647/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1647/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shashank DeogadkarFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Pathak

Section 143(3)

…rejudice basis, the Assessing Officer also held that it was a fresh claim made during assessment proceedings without filing any revised return of income and hence, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. 3 Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) was attracted and the claim of assessee was held to be not acceptable. 5. The CIT(A) on the other hand, observed that in order to decide whether the subsidy was revenue receipt or capital in nature, the object of subsidy scheme was to be considered and the form of mechanism through which the subsidy given was held to be irrelevant. Vide par…

Nidus Advertising and Marketing Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward -4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 99/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

…According to the Ld. representative, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the claim of deduction was not made in the return of income. Therefore, applying the judgment of Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323, he rejected the claim made by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) also confirmed the disallowance. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee can reconcile the difference before the Assessing Officer, therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 3. I heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Repres…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sanjay Khurana, New Delhi

ITA 4706/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Senior DR

Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4706/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) ACIT, Circle 54 (1), vs. M/s. Sanjay Khurana, New Delhi. C – 76, Defence Colony, New Delhi. (PAN : AAGPK4239D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 26.08.2019 Date of Order : 03.09.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, ACIT, Circle 54 (1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Revenue’) by filing the p…

M/S Jokhiram Durgadutt, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Rnc

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 47/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Aug 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.47/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jokhiram Durgadutt, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sarawgi House, J.J.Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfj 2200 Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.S.Paul, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Paul, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)

…ant and therefore, no such determination has been made in the past in terms of the provisions of section 32 (2) and 72. No claim at this stage can be adjudicated in terms of the ratio of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) which held that appellant-assessee cannot make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return.” On careful perusal of the above observations of the CIT(A), we do not see any good reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) in this regard and accordingly we uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the…

Morarjee Realities Ltd. (Now Known As Peninsula Land Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T. Circle 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2135/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushilkumar Poddar

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45

…fter making suo-moto disallowance of such expenditure in assessment year 2005-06 since such expenses pertained to assessment year 2004-05. The Assessing Officer placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) denied the claim as it was not made by filing a revised return of income for instant year and even complete details of such expenditure were not furnished. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on this issue. 16 Morarjee Realties Ltd. ITA Nos. 2135 & 2343/Mum/2009 17. Before us, the Learned Representative for the…

The ACIT, Ernakulam vs. M/S.Nitta Gelatine India Ltd, Cochin

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

ITA 301/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

…g Officer held that this being a fresh claim cannot be entertained during the completion of the assessment proceedings. 17. On appeal, the CIT(A) analysed the provisions of law in the light of the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (284 ITR 323) , ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. (15 SOT 252), CIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Ltd. (90 ITR 236), Bombay High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336), ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of Thomas Kurian vs. ACIT (106 ITD 158), Solaris Bio Chemicals Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.987/2011 dated 13/07/201…

Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2588/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2588/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) बनधम/ M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd Pr. Chief Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Tower No.1, Income-Tax-2 Vs. Room No.344, 3Rd Floor, One India Bulls Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Elphistone Road, Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1314G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Karthik Natarajan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013-14 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2013 Declaring Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.1556,56,31,880/- For The A.Y. 2013-14. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.12.2016 Assessing The Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.1725,96,68,536/-. On Verification, It Was Found That The Order Dated 28.12.2016 Was Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Requires Revision. The Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On The Following Grounds: - “On Examination Of The Records It Is Seen That Deduction To The Tune Of Rs.3,22,50,564/- Has Been Allowed To The Assessee U/S 35D Of The I.T. Act, 1961. However, It Was Noticed That The Said

For Appellant: Shri Karthik Natarajan (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35D

…2)/remand report2016-17 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 can not 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…

Sri Selvalakshmi Srinivasa Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem vs. ACIT(E), Salem

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.917/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Selvalaxmi Srinivasa Vs The Income Tax Officer, Educational & Charitable Exemption Ward, Trust, Salem 20/45, Cauvery Nagar, Mettur Dam, Salem. Pan: Aadts7299C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Balamurugan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan,Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri S. Balamurugan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan,JCIT

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

…Officer and a copy before the Ld.CIT(A) and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association, supra, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case Goetze India Ltd v. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider the Form No.10A and its enclosure, afresh, as to whether they are in accordance with the law and if they are in accordance with the law to allow the relief. The assessee shall furnish relevant material before the Assessing Officer and comply 4 with the requirements of the Assessing Officer in accordan…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Nitta Gelatine India Ltd, Cochin

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

ITA 303/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1`), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 2037/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR

Section 143(2)Section 80I

…33,004/-]. 5. Dissatisfied with the action of the AO, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It was contended by the assessee that though according to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the AO may not be competent to entertain fresh claim unless revised return is being filed by the assessee, but this restriction is not applicable on the first appellate authority. The issue raised by the assessee is legal one and it can ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 4 be entertained by the first app…

The DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 3233/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR

Section 143(2)Section 80I

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 2490/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR

Section 143(2)Section 80I

DCIT-13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Qad India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3694/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Qad India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-13(1)(1) Unit Member 301, 2Nd Floor, Room No.218 Techniplex – 1 Aayakar Bhavan Techniplex Complex M.K.Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 061 Pan/Gir No. Aaacq1307K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM Dy. Commissioner of Vs. QAD India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-13(1)(1) Unit Member 301, 2nd Floor, Room No.218 Techniplex – 1 Aayakar Bhavan Techniplex Complex M.K.Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 061 PAN/GIR No. AAACQ1307K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri D.G. Pansari Assessee by Shri Aliasger Rampurwala / Shri Nishant Shah Date of Hearing 05/08/2019 Date of Pronouncement 21/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.3694/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2014-15 arise…

M/S Eka Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 40/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 Vs. Income-Tax Officer, M/S. Eka Software Solutions Private Limited, Ward – 2(1)(4), Building 2A, East Tower, Bengaluru. Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru– 560 037. Pan : Aabce 3660 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajay Rotti, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…g in the Form 26AS. The CIT(A), observing that the assessee had raised the issue for the first time before him without filing any revised return of income before the AO, as warranted by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., (284 ITR 323) (SC), held that the assessee;s claim cannot be allowed and dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 30.10.2018. 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-2, Bengaluru, dated 30.10.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal, wherein it has raised the following grounds:- Page 3 of 6 3.2 In these gr…

M/S. Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1604/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2009-10] & [A.Y 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…he course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee made a claim of Rs. 84,26,731/- u/s 37(1) of the Act by way of a letter alongwith all documentary evidences and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz [India] Ltd 284 ITR 323, the Assessing Officer did not entertain the claim of the assessee. 59. When the matter was agitated before the DRP, the DRP did not adjudicate on the additional claim. 60. Before us, the ld. AR vehemently argued that the CBDT vide Circular No. 14 dated 11.4.1955 has clearly directed the revenue authorities not to take advantage of the ignoranc…

Beam Global Spirits & Wine India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1214/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2009-10] & [A.Y 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Airport Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5196/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR

Section 115J

…ssue of year of assessability of the income is pending. 2. Whether the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the appellant's claim to the above extent disregarding the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). 3. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 4 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. The ld. DR filed the following written synopsis:- “In the above case, for A.Y 2011-12 total…