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

Mitsubishi Corporation, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 193/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT DR (International Taxation)

…ise, in AY 2007-08 and 2008-09, similar claim as has been raised by way of additional grounds in AY 2005-06 was made before the AO as well as ld. DRP which has been rejected by following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 (SC) which is not applicable on the power of appellate authority to 14 ITA No.4659/Del./2011 ITA No.5769/Del./2010 ITA No.152/Del./2012 ITA No.193/Del./2013 consider the revised claim as has been held in Rites Ltd. vs. CIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 267 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. – 306 ITR 42 (Del.). 16. Issue as to admissibilit…

Mitsubishi Corporation, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 152/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT DR (International Taxation)

…ise, in AY 2007-08 and 2008-09, similar claim as has been raised by way of additional grounds in AY 2005-06 was made before the AO as well as ld. DRP which has been rejected by following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 (SC) which is not applicable on the power of appellate authority to 14 ITA No.4659/Del./2011 ITA No.5769/Del./2010 ITA No.152/Del./2012 ITA No.193/Del./2013 consider the revised claim as has been held in Rites Ltd. vs. CIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 267 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. – 306 ITR 42 (Del.). 16. Issue as to admissibilit…

Mitsubishi Corporation, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 4659/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall, CIT DR (International Taxation)

…ise, in AY 2007-08 and 2008-09, similar claim as has been raised by way of additional grounds in AY 2005-06 was made before the AO as well as ld. DRP which has been rejected by following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 (SC) which is not applicable on the power of appellate authority to 14 ITA No.4659/Del./2011 ITA No.5769/Del./2010 ITA No.152/Del./2012 ITA No.193/Del./2013 consider the revised claim as has been held in Rites Ltd. vs. CIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 267 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. – 306 ITR 42 (Del.). 16. Issue as to admissibilit…

St- Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6247/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.D. Kapila, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92D

…ment proceedings, in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. reported in 24 taxmann.com 222. He submitted that the DRP following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 323, rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not claim such depreciation on goodwill in its return of income. He submitted that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11, has decided the issue regarding the non-applicability of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India)…

M/S. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3727/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2006-07 Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B New Delhi Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aaaca5313P Ay: 2007-08 Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144CSection 92C

…the ITA No.3727/Del/2014 AY 2006-07 ITA 2770/Del/12 and C.O.85/Del/2013 AY 2007-08 ITA 29/Del/14 AY 2008-09 Adidas India Marketing P Ltd. Act by way of filing revised return, placing reliance upon Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323. 15.2. Ld.Counsel submitted that in case of Goetze India Ltd (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of power of Assessing Officer to admit a claim which was not raised in the return of income and does not incline on the power of appellate authority. Instead placing reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of TRF Lt…

M/S. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2006-07 Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B New Delhi Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aaaca5313P Ay: 2007-08 Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144CSection 92C

…the ITA No.3727/Del/2014 AY 2006-07 ITA 2770/Del/12 and C.O.85/Del/2013 AY 2007-08 ITA 29/Del/14 AY 2008-09 Adidas India Marketing P Ltd. Act by way of filing revised return, placing reliance upon Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323. 15.2. Ld.Counsel submitted that in case of Goetze India Ltd (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of power of Assessing Officer to admit a claim which was not raised in the return of income and does not incline on the power of appellate authority. Instead placing reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of TRF Lt…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2006-07 Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B New Delhi Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aaaca5313P Ay: 2007-08 Ito, Co.Ward 1(2) Vs. Adidas India Marketing Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Sector B Pocket No.7, Plot No.11 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144CSection 92C

…the ITA No.3727/Del/2014 AY 2006-07 ITA 2770/Del/12 and C.O.85/Del/2013 AY 2007-08 ITA 29/Del/14 AY 2008-09 Adidas India Marketing P Ltd. Act by way of filing revised return, placing reliance upon Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323. 15.2. Ld.Counsel submitted that in case of Goetze India Ltd (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of power of Assessing Officer to admit a claim which was not raised in the return of income and does not incline on the power of appellate authority. Instead placing reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of TRF Lt…

Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 317/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 198Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman v. DCIT Nigam Limited Range VI Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAACU5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT v. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range VI Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAACU5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K. R. Rastogi, FCA Department by: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR) Date of hear…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 314/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 198Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman v. DCIT Nigam Limited Range VI Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAACU5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT v. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range VI Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAACU5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K. R. Rastogi, FCA Department by: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR) Date of hear…

Shekhavati Investments and Traders Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1663/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1663/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…62,49,109/- was not claimed u/s 14A read with Rule 8D, actual disallowance should be assessed as Rs. 26,00,022/-. Since the assessee did not file a revise return for its claim, the claim is rejected following the Supreme court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. 284 ITR 323. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing the following: “I have considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and submission of the authorized representative of the appellate company as well as the assessment or…

Organon (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata

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

ITA 1335/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 195Section 40

…assessee either in the original return or even in the form of revised return, the Assessing Officer did not entertain the claim of the assessee for the said deduction by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Limited [284 ITR 323]. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on this issue by observing that the assessee was not entitled to make any fresh claim, which was not made either in the return of income originally filed or by way of filing a revised return. 12. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was liable to…

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Gandhinagar vs. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., Gandhinagar

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1463/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Appellant: Shri O.P.Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Bhavin Marfatiya, AR
Section 14A

…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 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Gandhinagar vs. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., Gandhinagar

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1462/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Appellant: Shri O.P.Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Bhavin Marfatiya, AR
Section 14A

…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…

Roots Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(1)(Erstwhile DCIT 1(3)], Mumbai

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

ITA 5090/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Roots Corporation Ltd., Vs. Dcit1(3), Mumbai Flat No.13, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Vikhroli(E), Mumbai Pan/Gir No.Aaccr 6389 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bhadresh K. Doshi, Ar Revenue By Shri D.G. Pansari, Sr.Ar Cit

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM Roots Corporation Ltd., Vs. DCIT1(3), Mumbai Flat No.13, Godrej and Boyce Complex, Vikhroli(E), Mumbai PAN/GIR No.AACCR 6389 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Bhadresh K. Doshi, AR Revenue by Shri D.G. Pansari, Sr.AR CIT Date of Hearing 11/04/2019 Date of Pronouncement 03/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.5090/Mum/2017 for A.Y.2011-2012 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai in Appeal No.CIT(A)-3/DCIT-1(3)/IT-1…

M/S Agnus Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 675/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Anand, Addl CIT
Section 14A

…owance u/s 14A through a letter. However, the AO did not consider the same. Normally the mistakes committed in filing return of income are to be corrected only by filing revised return of income as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd (284 ITR 323). However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in the above said case, that its order does not impinge the power of the Tribunal. 4. We notice that the mistakes/errors pointed out by the assessee are genuine one. It is well settled proposition of law that Page 3 of 5 there is no estoppel against law. Hence, we are of the view that the claim…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…nder section 80IB of the Act claimed by the appellant in respect of profits of the Rail Universal Beam Mill during the course of assessment proceedings was not admissible in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Limited vs CIT: 284 ITR 323. 3.2 That the assessing officer/ DRP grossly erred in not appreciating that: (a) aforesaid deduction claimed by the appellant was mere enhancement of the deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act in the return of income; and (b) the assessing officer was, in any case, duty bound to suo motu allow the said deduction, even if the appellant ha…

Evergreen Sewa Samiti, Bhilwara vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ajmer

ITA 861/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Aashish Sharma (Adv)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 147

…t being run for the purpose of profit. The submission of the A.R has been considered but not accepted. The assessee has been claiming exemption u/s 11 and not u/s 10(23)C(iii) (ad) as is being sought now. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Goetz(I) ltd 284 ITR 323(SC) (2006) has held that an assessee cannot amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee has not laid the claim through the revised return, nor has it made the claim even while filing the return of Income in response to notice u/s 148, hence the claim for claiming exemption…

Evergreen Sewa Samiti, Bhilwara vs. ITO (Exemption), Ajmer

ITA 476/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Aashish Sharma (Adv)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 147

…t being run for the purpose of profit. The submission of the A.R has been considered but not accepted. The assessee has been claiming exemption u/s 11 and not u/s 10(23)C(iii) (ad) as is being sought now. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Goetz(I) ltd 284 ITR 323(SC) (2006) has held that an assessee cannot amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee has not laid the claim through the revised return, nor has it made the claim even while filing the return of Income in response to notice u/s 148, hence the claim for claiming exemption…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5600/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chanda
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

…e nor in the revised return of income. Accordingly, he disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction. Learned DRP also upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 9. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, though, the assessee may not have claimed the deduction either in the original or in the revised return of income, however, the assessee can raise such claim not only in the course of assessment proceedings, but before the appellate authorities also. In support of such contention, he relied u…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gtpl Hathway Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3346/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)

…depreciation and accordingly the lease rentals should be allowed as deduction. The AO disallowed the claim of the appellant stating that the claim was not made in the return and in view of the honourable Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Goetze(India) Ltd 284 ITR 323 he did not admit the revised claim. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted that there was no bar in making a revised claim even though it was not made in the original return. The appellant has placed reliance on the judgement of honourable Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal N…