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

Gtpl Hathway Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3041/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…

Wartsila India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed and appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 696/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Wartsila India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax-15(3)(1) “Wartsila India Limited) Aayakar Bhavan 21St Floor, Kesar Solitaire, Mumbai Plot No.5, Sector 19 Palm Beach Road, Sanpada Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0345D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Wartsila Diesel India Income Tax-15(3)(1) Private Limited 21St Floor, Kesar Solitaire, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai Plot No.5, Sector 19 Palm Beach Road, Sanpada Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0345D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., supra wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court clarified that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 does not impinge upon the hearing of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as well as CIT(A) to consider the claim of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not negated the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such claim. Accordingly, ground No.1 raised b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hfcl Infotel Ltd., Chandigarh

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

ITA 5008/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 35Section 35A

…fact that the assessee did not claim the business loss of Rs.44,26,99,485/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 and thus the assessee is not entitled to claim the above business loss in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court given in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 6. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.” 2. By way of aforesaid grounds, the Revenue has chal…

DCIT, C-I, Ludhiana vs. M/S Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana

ITA 800/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Vipin GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Renu Amitabh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36

…law and on facts in allowing the voluntary disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the assessee at the time of filing of return of income, ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., Vs. CIT [2006; 284 ITR 323], wherein it was categorically held that the AO cannot entertain claim of deduction otherwise than by filing of the revised return by the appellant? 4. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in law and on facts in allowing relief on account of capitalization of interest as per proviso to section 36(l)(iii)…

Valecha Badwani Sendhwa Tollways Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 11, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhvalecha Badwani Sendhwa Pcit-11 Tollways Ltd. 4Th Floor, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Valecha Chambers, Andheri M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv6105B Appellant Respondent Valecha Lm Tools Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-11 4Th Floor, Valecha Chambers, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri New Link Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv2787M Appellant Respondent : Shri Sumant Chadha With Appellant By Mr. Jitendra Trivedi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Poddar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019

For Respondent: Shri Sumant Chadha with
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 32

…the assessee to claim a deduction before the appellate authority which could not have been claimed before the AO. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has further observed that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT' [2006] 284 ITR 323/157 Taxman 1 regarding the restriction of making the claim through a revised return was limited to the powers of the Assessing Authority and the said judgment does not impinge on the power or negate the powers of the appellate authorities to entertain such claim by way of additional ground. Reliance can also be placed in this regard on the decisi…

Paswara Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6808/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Paswara Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs. The I.T.O, 226, Sector 15A Ward - 19(3) Noida, U.P. New Delhi Pan: Aadcp 5906 G [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2019 Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 254Section 80I

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Paswara Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs. The I.T.O, 226, Sector 15A Ward - 19(3) Noida, U.P. New Delhi PAN: AADCP 5906 G [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 18.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2019 Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] - 7, New Delhi dated 02.08.2018 pertai…

Grindwell Norton Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 404/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blea.C.I.T – 9(3)(2) V. M/S Grindwell Norton Ltd., 418, 4Th Floor, Leela Business Park, 5Th Level, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaacg 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Grindwell Norton Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -1(3)(2) V. Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Army & Navy Building, Mumbai-400 020 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacg 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akram Khan Department By : Shri Kiran Unavekar

For Appellant: Shri Akram KhanFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…CIT(A) for the reason that assessee made its claim only during the course of assessment proceedings and not by way of filing revised return. Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd v. CIT [284 ITR 323], rejected the claim of the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that any such additional claim can be raised before the appellate authorities even though assessee not filed revised return making its claim and this view is supported by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., 3 ITA…

Acie 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Grindwell Norton Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 347/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blea.C.I.T – 9(3)(2) V. M/S Grindwell Norton Ltd., 418, 4Th Floor, Leela Business Park, 5Th Level, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaacg 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Grindwell Norton Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -1(3)(2) V. Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Army & Navy Building, Mumbai-400 020 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacg 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akram Khan Department By : Shri Kiran Unavekar

For Appellant: Shri Akram KhanFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…CIT(A) for the reason that assessee made its claim only during the course of assessment proceedings and not by way of filing revised return. Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd v. CIT [284 ITR 323], rejected the claim of the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that any such additional claim can be raised before the appellate authorities even though assessee not filed revised return making its claim and this view is supported by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., 3 ITA…

Sh. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1808/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 1808/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Vs Acit, S/O Phool Chand Yadav, 401, Circle-35(1), Mahavirjee Complex, Rishabh New Delhi Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpy8780E Assessee By : Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xix, New Delhi Dated 06.01.2015. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Double Taxation Of Rs. 19.00.000/- Which Was Cash Deposit Into Bank Whereas In The Original Computation Of Income Assessee Included The Income Of Rs. 19,00,000 As Cash Credit Into Bank. (2) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Addition Of Rs. 19,00.000/- (Against The Duly Declared Agriculture Income Of Rs. 20,00,000/-) Treated Them As Undisclosed Income U/S 68 Of The Act In The Impugned Order U/S 143(3) Whereas Only Rs. 1,00,000/- Has Been Allowed As Agricultural Income. The Appellant/Assessee Prays For Grant Of Permission To Add/Insert/Alter/ Modify/Rectify Any Part Of The Above 2 Jitendra Kumar Yadav Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Either Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of This Appeal.” 3. In Ground No. 1 Of The Appeal, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.19,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposit In Bank Account.

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…ase of Sam Global Securities Ltd. (supra) has held as under: “ 8. A decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was distinguished in Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra) in the following words (page 46 of 302 ITR):- "In Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the dec…

Dilip Kumar, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 318/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 318/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Kumar –Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi [Pan: Adlpk 4085 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari Lal Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

…Pandey ITA Nos.318 & 278/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 5.4. Further, it is an admitted position that the appellant did not claim deduction u/s 54 of the Act in his return of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. v CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) has held that a claim for deduction which has not been made in the return of income cannot be made other than by filing a revised return. Accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer was justified in not allowing the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 3. It emerges from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s findings that…

Namita Pandey, Palamau vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Ranchi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 278/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 318/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Kumar –Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi [Pan: Adlpk 4085 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari Lal Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

…Pandey ITA Nos.318 & 278/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 5.4. Further, it is an admitted position that the appellant did not claim deduction u/s 54 of the Act in his return of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. v CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) has held that a claim for deduction which has not been made in the return of income cannot be made other than by filing a revised return. Accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer was justified in not allowing the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 3. It emerges from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s findings that…

Sri.Suhail Ameer Manappat, Kochi vs. The DCIT(Int.Taxation), Kochi

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

ITA 296/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Rajinark P
Section 143(3)

…l deduction in respect of payment of interest. Assessing Authority refused to consider the revised claim on the ground that the assessee has not filed any revised return u/s.139(5). In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order relying on Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). But, the ITAT admitted the additional claim and allowed the appeal referring to Pradeepkumar Harlarkar V s. ACIT (2011) 47 SOT 2014 URO (Mum)(Trib). 6.4 In Ricoh India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 264(Mum) (Trib), it was held that the restriction discussed in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) applies to Assessing Authorit…

George Joseph Fernandez, Raichur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Raichur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1965/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Balasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, JCIT
Section 145

…ITA.1965, 1966 & 2925/Bang/2017 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'B', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A Nos.1965, 2925 & 1966/Bang/2017 (Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12) Shri. George Joseph Fernandez, Engineers & Contractors, Pulliah Block, Station Road, Raichur .. Appellant PAN : AABPF9791J v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 1, Raichur .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Balasubramaniam, CA Revenue by : Shri. K. R. Narayana, JCIT Heard on : 21.03.2019 Pronounced on : 05.04.2019 O R D E…

Berggruen Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. 12(1)(2) (Present in Charge - D.C.I.T. - 14(1)(1)), Mumbai

ITA 6635/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6635 & 6636/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Jay Bhansali, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, DR
Section 32Section 35A

…withdraw the claim of deduction u/s 35AD and claimed depreciation as was claimed in the original return. 6. AO rejected the assessee’s claim of depreciation by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vrs. CIT (284 ITR 323). It was submitted by Ld. AR that the assessee had withdrawn its claim for deduction u/s 35AD as the assessee wanted to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. However, realizing that the time limit for revised return has expired, the assessee was left with no other option than to file the revised return with the AO during the course of assessment…

Income Tax Officer 22(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Neil B. Dodhia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Bleito – 22(2)(4) V. Shri Neil B. Dodhia R.No. 310, Piramal Chambers, Chandan 5, 2Nd Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Railway Colony, Irla Mumbai – 400 012 Opp. Pappillon Restaurant, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400 056

For Appellant: Shri Snehal R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra
Section 139(5)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO – 22(2)(4) v. Shri Neil B. Dodhia R.No. 310, Piramal Chambers, Chandan 5, 2nd Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Railway Colony, IRLA Mumbai – 400 012 Opp. Pappillon Restaurant, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400 056 PAN No: ALMPD 9909 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Snehal R. Shah Department by : Shri Ravindra Date of hearing : 02.04.2019 Date of pronouncement : 02.04.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the o…

Grindwell Norton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5479/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 14A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 5479/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Grindwell Norton Ltd. JCIT-1(1) Vs. C/o. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP Room No. 538 Esplanade House Aayakar Bhavan 2nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal M.K. Road Somani Marg, Fort Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 5531/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) DCIT-9(3)(2) Grindwell Norton Ltd. Vs. Room No. 418 C/o. Kalyaniwalla & Aayakar Bhavan Mistry LLP M.K. Road Esplanade House Mumbai-400 020 2nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort Mu…

Smt.Halima Zubair, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 116/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 2(14)Section 54F

…shold by the CIT(A) on the ground that the claim was not raised through the return of income, hence, it cannot be considered by the A.O. The CIT(A) failed to note that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had put an embargo on Assessing Officers entertaining a fresh claim other than through a revised return but the same decision has held that there is no such bar on appellate authorities entertaining a claim on any issue not raised in the return. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court 10 Smt.Halima Zubair. in the case…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emami Biotech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…n why such question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee. 2.4 The latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze India) Ltd. -VS.- CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (sC). the Apex Court dealt with the power of the A O. to entertain a claim made before the A.O., otherwise than through revised return filed on time and held that such claim cannot be entertained by AO. However, while concluding, the Apex Court made It abundantly clear that the said decision doesn't affect the power of the Tribunal to admit addit…

Sterling Addlife India Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 967/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.967/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Sterling Addlife India The Pr.Cit-4 Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad Vs. Sterling Hospital Buildings Off Gurukul Road Memnagar Ahmedabad-380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadca 0897 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dinal Shah & A.C.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax–4, Ahmedabad [Cit In Short] Dated 28/03/2018 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Dinal Shah & A.C.Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…Sterling Addlife India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT Asst.Year – 2013-14 not required to file the revised return since there is no prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Pr. CIT-4 has relied on the Apex Court decision in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. V/s. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) and CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31-10-1989. But as income assessed is not less than the income returned, the reference to Circular of CBDT No. 549 dated 31-10-1989 is not applicable. The income returned was Rs. 10.98 Crore and income assessed was Rs. 11.06 Crore under the MAT provision and thus assessee company was not required to revised th…

Group M Media (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) 7, Mumbai

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

ITA 501/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S Group M Media (India) The Dcit (Osd)-7, Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Commerz 455, Aayakar Bhavan, International Business Park, M.K. Road, Oberoi Garden City, Off Mumbai-400020. Vs. Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063. Pan: Aadcm1073B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ajit Shah(Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Shah(AR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 43B

…omputation of income along with the return of income as disallowable. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [284 ITR 323], no fresh claim can be entertained by the Assessing Officer. This restriction is also applicable to ITA No. 501 Mum 2018-M/s Group M Media (India) Pvt. Ltd. ld. CIT(A), therefore, the claim of assessee cannot be entertained in the appeal as well. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 3. We h…