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

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 214/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the claim made by the assessee in course of assessment proceedings through a letter cannot be entertained in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. v/s CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). Further, he observed, education cess being a part of income tax cannot be allowed as deduction. Accordingly, he added back the amount of ` 1,48,93,978, to the income of the assessee. On the basis of such addition, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Urban Condominium Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Department dismissed

ITA 6567/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Satyam Setti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 139(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.6567/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2012-2013 M/s. Ansal Urban Condominium Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, Circle-2 (2), 115, Ansal Bhawan, Room No.392, C.R. vs. 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110 001. New Delhi – 110 002. PAN AAHCA2956R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R. For Assessee : Shri Satyam Setti, Advocate. Date of Hearing : 05.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 07.08.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appe…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-3(4), Central Range-3, Mumbai vs. Shri Kamal Khetan, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4767/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhdcit Cc - 3(4) , Shri Kamal Khetan, Central Range-3, Room No. 78, Khetan Bhavan, J.B. Nagar, Vs. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (East), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400005. Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aahpk4505D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr Dr) Respondent By : Shri Rishabh Shah (Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr DR)For Respondent: Shri Rishabh Shah (AR)

Section 251(1)Section 254(1)Section 94(7)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT CC - 3(4) , Shri Kamal Khetan, Central Range-3, Room No. 78, Khetan Bhavan, J.B. Nagar, Vs. 1923, 19th Floor, Air India Andheri (East), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400005. Mumbai-400021 PAN: AAHPK4505D Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr DR) Respondent by : Shri Rishabh Shah (AR) Date of Hearing : 06.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by r…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ashish Dhawan, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Department dismissed

ITA 1142/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mangal &For Respondent: Shri Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 74

…the same and the same was only claimed during assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the same was rejected relying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 3 ITA.No.1142/Del./2016 Shri Ashish Dhawan, New Delhi. the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). It was further stated that in the case under consideration no fresh claim was made, but, the A.O. was requested to complete the assessment as per the provisions of the Act on the basis of the facts available on record. The assessee relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills AIR 1986 AIR 2111 i…

Viksun Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2044/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Viksun Agro Industries Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-26(1), C.R. Building, C-2/15, Prashant Vihar, New Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaacv3387N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr

Section 115Section 115JSection 194LSection 2Section 2(14)(iii)Section 56

…he assessee did not revise its return of income for claiming the said exemption. The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer. According to him in view of the ratio led by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze 4 India Ltd Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323(SC), the assessee was required to revise its return of income and so the claim was not acceptable. 4. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bharat General Insurance Company Limited, 81 ITR 303 (Del) held that “it was incumbent on the Income Tax Department to find out whether a particular income was assessable or not and mere…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ggc Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1258/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139

…ppellate authorities have power to consider a claim not made in the return of income. While doing so, the Hon’ble High court has relied on various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) reported in 306 ITR 42. It has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra) that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) has made it clear that the decision was limited t…

Rr Donnelley India Outsource Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is dismissed and in ITA

ITA 245/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.711/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs The M/S. Rr Donnelley India Deputy Commissioner Of Outsource Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 43A, 1St Main Road, R.A. Puram, Company Circle – V(4), Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aabch1990A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.244 & 245/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2010-11) Vs The M/S. Rr Donnelley India Deputy Commissioner Of Outsource Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 43A, 1St Main Road, R.A. Puram, Corporate Circle – 5(2), Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aabch1990A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…losures were not filed with original return of income. We find that the decisions arrived by the lower authorities are not correct. When the ITAT remitted the issues back to the file of the Assessing Officer applying the ratio of Goetze (India) Ltd., vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC), to decide the assessee’s alternate claim, the Assessing Officer cannot reject such claim merely for the reason that such claim was not made in the original return and the required Form No.56F was not filed along with original return, because the entertaining of the alternate claim was in accordance with the decision of Appellate Tribunal. T…

Rr Donnelley India Outsource Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is dismissed and in ITA

ITA 244/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

Rr Donnelley India Outsource Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is dismissed and in ITA

ITA 711/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

Alok Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7243/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

…ee. However the AO refused to acknowledge the claim of the Assessee on the ground that the claim was made otherwise than by filing a revised return of income. The AO observed that as per decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) such claim of the assessee cannot be entertained. Accordingly the claim made by the assessee was rejected. 23. By the impugned order CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee. 24. We have considered rival contentions. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs CIT (229 ITR 383) (copy is enclosed at PB Page N…

Swan Engitech Works Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11

ITA 220/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Swan Engitech Works Private The Income Tax Officer-8(2)(4), Limited, Room No. 659, Aaykar Bhavan, 1, Sahajanand Compound, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Acharya Done Marg, Sewree, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400015 Pan: Aaacs6331H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.P. Bairagra (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Swan Engitech Works Private The Income Tax Officer-8(2)(4), Limited, Room No. 659, Aaykar Bhavan, 1, Sahajanand Compound, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Acharya Done Marg, Sewree, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400015 PAN: AAACS6331H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri J.P. Bairagra (AR) Revenue by : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (DR) Date of Hearing: 25/04/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 18/07/2019 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM The assesse…

Hemant G. Bohra, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1) (Erstwhile-19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4197/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Shri Hemant G. Bohra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Shop No.15, 52/52A, Income Tax – 19(1) Room No.203, 2Nd Floor Nanubhai Desai Road Islampura Street Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400 004 Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007 Pan/Gir No.Adnpb4773D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 57

…. Merely because the assessee could not claim the same by way of a valid revised return, the same was sought to be disallowed by the lower authorities by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Limited reported in 284 ITR 323. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 had decided this issue in favour of the assessee. The facts before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court which is as under:- “3. It is important to note two things. Firstly, the respondent is entitled to the deduction…

Echjay Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5245/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner Of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1157B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube

Section 143(3)Section 147

…windmills for the Asst Year 2010-11 in view of the decision supra. 6.1. The ld CITA however did not entertain the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on the aforesaid reasoning. He simply applied the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India case (284 ITR 323) and held that the assessee is not entitled for deduction in the first appellate proceedings as the same was not made either in the original return of income or by way of a revised return. Asst Year 2011-12 7. In respect of windmill at Coimbatore, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in the sum of Rs 4,36,411/- The net profit for t…

M/S. Adani Gas Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1806/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad&Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1806/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Adani Gas Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Circle-1(1)(1), 1, Adani House, Vs. Ahmedabad Nr. Mithakhali Circle, Navarangpura, Ahmedabad- 380009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaf Ca3 788 D .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. L. P. Jain,SR. DRFor Respondent: 04/07/2019

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 37

…im towards depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs.5,57,63,315/- for which relevant facts are duly available on record in the light of the decision ITA No. 1806/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) & NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC).” Respectfully, following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench as cited in this order the appeal of the assessee on this issue is allowed. Ground No. 4:- Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act:- 11. The major part of the disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D is pertained to disallowance of administrative…

Saloni Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 225/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodmrs. Saloni Jhaveri The Income Tax Officer-2(3)(3), 17-C, Rushila, Room No. 555, Carmichael Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 026 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, D.R

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.225/Mum/2018 AY. 2013-14 Mrs. Saloni Jhavery Vs. The Income Tax Officer-2(3)(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Mrs. Saloni Jhaveri The Income Tax Officer-2(3)(3), 17-C, Rushila, Room No. 555, Carmichael Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 026 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN – AAHPJ9691D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Sanjay Parikh, A.R Respondent by: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, D.R Date of Hearing: 28.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 12.07.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM…

Banc Tec India Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2692/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.2692/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) BancTec TPS India Pvt. Ltd. T–341, Tower no.3, 4th Floor International Infotech Park ……………. Appellant Vashi Railway Station Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 705 PAN – AAACT8971E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–15(1)(2), Mumbai Revenue by : Shri Anand Mohan Assessee by : Shri J.D. Mistry a/w Shri Madhur Agarwal and Ms. Urvi Mehta Date of Hearing – 24.04.2019 Date of Order – 12.07.2019 O R D E R…

Sri Mugur Dundanayaka Basavaraju, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Mysuru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1857/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Mugur Dundanayaka Basavaraju, The Income Tax # 149, Nayakara Street, Officer, Muguru Village, Vs. Ward – 1 [1], T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru. Mysuru District. Pan: Bgqpb6811H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…,950/- should be allowed which will result into capital loss of Rs. (-) 28,96,422/-. But this claim of the assessee was not considered by the AO by following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT as reported in 284 ITR 323. He submitted that even if this claim was not allowed by the AO by following this judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, said claim should be considered and allowed by the Tribunal. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court does not impinge upon the power of the Tribunal. Ld. DR of revenue supported the order of ld. CIT. 4. We have considered the rival submis…

Sabarmati River Front Development Corpn.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed in terms and stated above therein

ITA 1394/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Smt. Arti N. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 40Section 57

…uring construction”. It is not the case of the assessee that the funds have been borrowed for investments. Rather the loan has been raised for business purposes only. Therefore, relying on the decision of Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetz India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 : ITA No. 1394/Ahd/15 & 1297/Ahd/16 9 . A.Ys. 2011-12-2012-13 20. And Assessing Officer had disallowed the similar claim of the assessee which was again confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on similar ratio of decision relied by the ld. CIT(A) and disallowed the interest expense. 21. Thereafter, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld.…

Gmr Hyderabad International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2189/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.V Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 30

…the assessee. The ld CIT(A), however, dismissed the said claim of the assessee by holding that the assessee could make additional claim only by filing revised return of income as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India Ltd.) Vs. CIT (2006)(284 ITR 323). 9. We have heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We noticed that the claim of the assessee has not been examined by the AO, since the said claim was made for the first time before the ld CIT(A) by the assessee. Though the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., (Supra) stated that the addi…

M/S Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Employees Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal numbered as ITA 461/Bang/2019 is treated as allowed and the other appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 461/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Ita Nos.461 & 462(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Years : 2011-12) Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd., No.1, Apex Bank Building, Pampa Mahakavu Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560 018 Pan No.Aaaak2843E Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri C. Sandeep, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.N.Siddappajji, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri C. Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Siddappajji, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P

…the return of income. 10. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the claim made by the assessee for deduction u/s 80P of the Act may be considered as a New Claim. As per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd (284 ITR 323), the Tribunal is empowered to admit new claims. Accordingly we admit the claim for deduction u/s 80P of the Act made by the assessee. Since it requires examination at the end of AO, we restore the same to his file for examining the same, after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. 11. Since we have adjudicated the appeal relating to in…