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

Smt.Renuka G, Bellary vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal forAssessment Year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 552/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2013-14 Vs. Assistant Commissioner Smt. Renuka G , #36, “Hrishikesh”, Of Income-Tax, Gold Smith Street, Besides Central Circle – 1(3), Indian Bank, Bangalore. Bellary – 583 101. Pan : Abypr 5731 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Karuppusamy S.R, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Karuppusamy S.R, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 234Section 234ASection 90

…earned by her as an NRI for services rendered abroad when employed with M/s. Centurion Consulting F2E in Dubai (UAE). The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s claim by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 (2006) and dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 08.02.2019. 3. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-11, Bangalore, dated 08.02.2019 for Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee has preferred this appeal wherein she has raised the following grounds:- The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are 1. against the…

M/S Hirsch Bracelet India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 3392/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.S.V.S. Pavan Kumar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 Hirsh Bracelet India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 6/14, Gurappa Avenue, Income Tax, Primrose Road, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 025. Bangalore. PAN: AAACH 0119E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri R.S.V.S. Pavan Kumar, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This appeal…

The Addl.CIT, Range-1, Baroda vs. Gujarat Fluorochemeicals Ltd, Baroda

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 548/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

…this issue in the draft assessment order, which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, in strictly legal terms, the said objection doesn't fall under the provisions of Section 144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. 24.3 On merits, the DRP has noted the CIT (A)'s order of earlier 2 years and concurs with the findings of the CIT…

Gujarat Flurochemicals Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

…this issue in the draft assessment order, which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, in strictly legal terms, the said objection doesn't fall under the provisions of Section 144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. 24.3 On merits, the DRP has noted the CIT (A)'s order of earlier 2 years and concurs with the findings of the CIT…

Gujarat Flurochemicals Limited, Baroda vs. The Addl. CIT, Range-1, Baroda

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 116/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

…this issue in the draft assessment order, which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, in strictly legal terms, the said objection doesn't fall under the provisions of Section 144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. 24.3 On merits, the DRP has noted the CIT (A)'s order of earlier 2 years and concurs with the findings of the CIT…

Tha Addl. CIT, Range-1, Baroda vs. M/S. Gujarat Flurochemicals Limited., Baroda

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 106/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

…this issue in the draft assessment order, which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, in strictly legal terms, the said objection doesn't fall under the provisions of Section 144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. 24.3 On merits, the DRP has noted the CIT (A)'s order of earlier 2 years and concurs with the findings of the CIT…

Gujarat Fluorochemeicals Ltd, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 135/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

…this issue in the draft assessment order, which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, in strictly legal terms, the said objection doesn't fall under the provisions of Section 144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. 24.3 On merits, the DRP has noted the CIT (A)'s order of earlier 2 years and concurs with the findings of the CIT…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda vs. Gujarat Flurochemicals Ltd., Baroda

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2546/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

…this issue in the draft assessment order, which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, in strictly legal terms, the said objection doesn't fall under the provisions of Section 144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. 24.3 On merits, the DRP has noted the CIT (A)'s order of earlier 2 years and concurs with the findings of the CIT…

Gujarat Flurochemicals Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2365/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

…this issue in the draft assessment order, which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, in strictly legal terms, the said objection doesn't fall under the provisions of Section 144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. 24.3 On merits, the DRP has noted the CIT (A)'s order of earlier 2 years and concurs with the findings of the CIT…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Vf Brands India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 42/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Vf Brands India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As ‘Vf Arvind The Assistant Brands Pvt. Ltd.), Bagmane Commissioner Of Income- Laurel, Block B, Level 09, Tax, Vs. Floor 8, Circle – 7 (1) (2), Bagmane Tech Park, C.V. Bangalore. Raman Nagar, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaccv2727L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Shreya Loyalka, Ca Revenue By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, JCIT (DR)
Section 32

…rievance of the revenue that CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of Depreciation on Goodwill to the assessee company without taking into consideration the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT as reported in 284 ITR 323. But in this regard, we find no merit Page 3 of 7 in this objection of revenue because as per the same judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is noted in that case also that fresh claim was raised by assessee before the AO without filing any revised return of income and the same was rejected by the AO but when the assessee carried the matter in appea…

The ITO, Trivandrum vs. M/S.Perrorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 47/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

…36(2)(v) of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee debits the amount on such debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts. The AO relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 232) wherein it was held that claim of deduction/provision not made in the return can be entertained by the AO only if such claim is made through a revised return and not otherwise. This being the position of law as per the decision of the Supreme Court, the Assessing Officer held that the claim made by the assessee was unsustainable and devoid of m…

M/S.Peroorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 93/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

…36(2)(v) of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee debits the amount on such debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts. The AO relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 232) wherein it was held that claim of deduction/provision not made in the return can be entertained by the AO only if such claim is made through a revised return and not otherwise. This being the position of law as per the decision of the Supreme Court, the Assessing Officer held that the claim made by the assessee was unsustainable and devoid of m…

M/S.Perrorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 563/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

…36(2)(v) of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee debits the amount on such debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts. The AO relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 232) wherein it was held that claim of deduction/provision not made in the return can be entertained by the AO only if such claim is made through a revised return and not otherwise. This being the position of law as per the decision of the Supreme Court, the Assessing Officer held that the claim made by the assessee was unsustainable and devoid of m…

M/S.Peroorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, WD-2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 400/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

…36(2)(v) of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee debits the amount on such debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts. The AO relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 232) wherein it was held that claim of deduction/provision not made in the return can be entertained by the AO only if such claim is made through a revised return and not otherwise. This being the position of law as per the decision of the Supreme Court, the Assessing Officer held that the claim made by the assessee was unsustainable and devoid of m…

M/S.Perrorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 141/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

…36(2)(v) of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee debits the amount on such debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts. The AO relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 232) wherein it was held that claim of deduction/provision not made in the return can be entertained by the AO only if such claim is made through a revised return and not otherwise. This being the position of law as per the decision of the Supreme Court, the Assessing Officer held that the claim made by the assessee was unsustainable and devoid of m…

First Flight Couriers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1324/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1324/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. First Flight Couriers Ltd. Dcit-12(2)(1) बनाम Room No.223, 2Nd Floor नाम नाम/ नाम G-1001/02, Lotus Corporate Park Graham Firth Steel Compound Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0841-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2439/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-12(2)(1) M/S. First Flight Couriers Ltd. बनाम Room No.223, 2Nd Floor नाम/ नाम नाम G-1001/02, Lotus Corporate Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Graham Firth Steel Compound Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0841-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh-Ld.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…essee while filing the return of income and during assessment proceedings, the assessee pleaded for the allowance of the same. Both the lower authorities rejected the same relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us by way of Ground No.1. 3.2 Keeping in view the fact that assessee’s correct income was to be computed and keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. V/s CIT [187 ITR 688], we admit the assessee’s claim and restore the issue back to the file of Ld…

Vempati Srinivasa Subrahmanyam, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 231/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Vempati Srinivasa Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Subramanyam, Ward – 4(2)(1), Villa-04, Prestige Bougainvillea, Bangalore. No.59, Ecc Road, White Field, Bangalore – 560 06. Pan : Aclps 6643 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ned AR, in the background of the facts of case on hand as laid out above, the CIT(A) ought to have considered the assessee’s contentions and erred in disregarding the same by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., (284 ITR 323) (SC). It was submitted that the CIT(A), being an appellate authority, not being bound the fetters placed on the AO by the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), was very well empowered to consider claims / grounds not raised by the assessee before the AO and cited the following decisions in support of the assessee’s contentions:-…

M/S Bmw India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result ground number 7 – 12 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed accordingly

ITA 1163/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishibmw India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 7Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. Circle-1(1), 8, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aabcb7104C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92BSection 92p

…led by way of a letter during the course of assessment proceedings. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred by applying the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court („SC‟) in case of Goetze (I) Ltd. vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] by completely ignoring Circular N0.14 dated April 11, 1955 issued by the Central 3 | P a g e Board of Direct Taxes („CBDT‟) which provides that all legitimate claims made by the taxpayer should be allowed. 9. That the Ld. DRP erred on facts in observing that there is no evidence to substantiate the additional claim of deduction made by the app…

Kishor Hira Bhandari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 30(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 370/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodshri Kishore Hira Bhandari I.T.O 30(2)(1) Kishore Bhandari Chawl, Mumbai Behind Mamta Medical Store, Vs. Marve Road, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400064

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakrar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54

…his aforesaid entitlement towards deduction under Sec.54F had placed on record the copy of the „purchase deed‟, dated 10.07.2013. Admittedly, an A.O 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), is not vested with any powers to entertain a claim for deduction/relief raised by the assessee, except for those raised either in his original return of income or through a revised return. However, we are of the considered view that as observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi Broker and Share Holders Ltd (…

Sh. Param Paul Singh, Chandigarh vs. DCIT (Intl. Taxation), Circle, Chandigarh

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 198/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara, Judicialmember Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shr Manjit Singh, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 54Section 69

…ssessment proceedings. He appears to have filed a computation sheet claiming sec. 54 deduction on account of re- investment of capital gains in residential property. The Assessing Officer quoted hon'ble apex court’s decision in Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) to conclude that the assessee’s deduction claim in absence of revised return or that filed in response to sec. 148 notice; could not be accepted. He therefore disallowed / added the impugned deduction. 7. The CIT(A) has confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action as under:- “4.8 It is seen from the report of the A.O. and the facts quoted by t…