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

Sudip Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1563/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1563/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Sudip Kumar Ghosh –Vs- Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata [Pan: Acwpg 0160 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 54

…made Rs. 39 lacs investment in a new residential house. The Revenue’s case is that the assessee never filed a revised return raising the said deduction claim before the Assessing Officer. Mr. Singh quotes hon’ble apex court decision Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 283 ITR 323 (SC). I find no merit in Revenue’s instant argument. Their lordships have made it clear that the said judicial precedent does not impinge upon the appellate authorities jurisdiction of entertaining a new plea in absence of a revised return. Case records prima facie suggest that there is no dispute as such the assessee having already invested much…

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 696/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, JCIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…proceedings before the IT authorities by moving rectification applications when it deliberately filed its original return with incomplete information. As per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT as reported in 284 ITR 323, it was held as under:- “2. The question raised in this appeal relates to whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. The assessment year in question was 1995-96. The return was filed on 30th Nov., 1995, by the appellant for the assessment year in question. On 12th Jan., 1998, the appella…

The ACIT, Corp Circle-1(1), Kochi, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Ernakulam

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

ITA 247/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…allowing loss incurred by the assessee during the previous year ended 31.03-2006 on account of loss of raw materials in fire which was rejected by the AO relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India] Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 wherein it is held that after the filing of the return of income the assessing authority has no authority to entertain any claim made otherwise than by way of revised return. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in allowing deducting u/s. 80IA on gas turbine unit 'other than steam' and gas…

Torrent Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1562/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1562/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 ) बनाम/ Torrent Energy Ltd. The Ito Torrent House Ward-8(1) Vs. Nr.Dinesh Hall Ahmedabad Ashram Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct 8570 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar & Shri Parikh Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 19/03/2019 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 (Appeals)–8, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cit(A)-Xiv/516/13-14 Dated 12.03.2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Here-In-After Referred To As "The Act") Dated 21/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Dismissing Ground No. 1 Of The Appellant'S Appeal Before Him Challenging The Very Validity Of The Assessment Order Torrent Energy Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst.Year - 2011-12 Impugned Before Him, On The Ground That It Was General In Nature & Did Not Require Adjudication By Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar &For Respondent: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr.DR
Section 32(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1562/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 ) बनाम/ Torrent energy Ltd. The ITO Torrent House Ward-8(1) Vs. Nr.Dinesh Hall Ahmedabad Ashram Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCT 8570 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S.N. Soparkar & Shri Parikh Shah, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /D…

The DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal vs. M/S. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 63/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 20

…Tax Act when such claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act was neither made in the return of income nor before the assessing officer. Such claim is not allowable as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 Hon'ble Supreme Court [2006]. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the society benefits of the exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of Income Tax Act especially when it was found by the assessing officer that the income of the society was used or applied for the benefit of the interested pers…

Ardor in-Fin Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 276/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ardor In-Fin Private Limited ......…………......Appellant Ardor House, Mondeal Business Park, B/S. Gurudwara, Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380 059 [Pan – Aagca 2925 B] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax .......................Respondent Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad Appearances By: Ankit Talsania For The Appellant Apoorva Bhardwaj For The Respondent Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 14.03.2019 O R D E R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…make the claim before the CIT(A) and sought to withdraw the suo motu disallowance offered by him mistakenly but the CIT(A) declined to grant any relief in the matter, as, in his opinion, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 223), came in the way. No claim could be made by the assessee except by way of revising the income tax return. That bar admittedly applies only on the authorities below and this Tribunal, in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of NTPC Vs CIT (229 ITR 383), is empowered to deal with any question of law particularly arising out of…

Ardor in-Fin Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 275/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ardor In-Fin Private Limited ......…………......Appellant Ardor House, Mondeal Business Park, B/S. Gurudwara, Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380 059 [Pan – Aagca 2925 B] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax .......................Respondent Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad Appearances By: Ankit Talsania For The Appellant Apoorva Bhardwaj For The Respondent Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 14.03.2019

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…make the claim before the CIT(A) and sought to withdraw the suo motu disallowance offered by him mistakenly but the CIT(A) declined to grant any relief in the matter, as, in his opinion, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 223), came in the way. No claim could be made by the assessee except by way of revising the income tax return. That bar admittedly applies only on the authorities below and this Tribunal, in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of NTPC Vs CIT (229 ITR 383), is empowered to deal with any question of law particularly arising out of…

Purnendu Ghosh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.2(1), International Taxation, Kolkata

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

ITA 2241/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 139(5)Section 192Section 194JSection 24Section 80C

…It has to be kept in mind that what is required to be determined is the taxable income of the assessee in accordance with law. It is taken note that the case law relied by Revenue in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. JCIT 4 Purnendu Ghosh, AY:2013-14 (2206) 284 ITR 323 (SC) the facts were different and facts in that case was that the assessee claimed deduction by way of a letter before the AO which was disallowed by AO on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was made clear that the…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4975/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…e Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the findings of the Ld. AO and dismissed the ground of appeal stating that the assessee cannot raise a new ground of appeal which has not been raised in the return of income after relying on decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). v. The Appellant hereby submits that the case of Hasimara (Supra) is distinguished on the facts that if loss incurred on a capital asset is treated as a capital loss, if any profit or income is incurred on such capital asset, it can be termed as capital income and hence, the case supports the proposition of the Appellant rather than supporting…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Jubliant Organosys Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…e Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the findings of the Ld. AO and dismissed the ground of appeal stating that the assessee cannot raise a new ground of appeal which has not been raised in the return of income after relying on decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). v. The Appellant hereby submits that the case of Hasimara (Supra) is distinguished on the facts that if loss incurred on a capital asset is treated as a capital loss, if any profit or income is incurred on such capital asset, it can be termed as capital income and hence, the case supports the proposition of the Appellant rather than supporting…

Jubilant Organosys Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2497/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…e Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the findings of the Ld. AO and dismissed the ground of appeal stating that the assessee cannot raise a new ground of appeal which has not been raised in the return of income after relying on decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). v. The Appellant hereby submits that the case of Hasimara (Supra) is distinguished on the facts that if loss incurred on a capital asset is treated as a capital loss, if any profit or income is incurred on such capital asset, it can be termed as capital income and hence, the case supports the proposition of the Appellant rather than supporting…

Copper Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Satara vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 652/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GajrathiFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gudekar
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…Rs.2,22,21,159/- u/s 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act when such claim was not made by the assessee either in the original return of income or in the revised return of income contrary to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the additional claim of deduction of Rs.23,70,107/- u/s 35(1)(iv) of the Act when such claim was not made by the assessee either in the original return or in the revised return of income or during the course of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Cooper Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Satara

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 621/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GajrathiFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gudekar
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…Rs.2,22,21,159/- u/s 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act when such claim was not made by the assessee either in the original return of income or in the revised return of income contrary to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the additional claim of deduction of Rs.23,70,107/- u/s 35(1)(iv) of the Act when such claim was not made by the assessee either in the original return or in the revised return of income or during the course of…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Jindal Worldwide Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee in its cross objection is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1843/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1843/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 145/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 14A

…acitated to put forward such new claim 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 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). 22. In the result, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 11.2 Having admitted the additional ground for adjudication as noted above we now turn to the relevant facts touching the issue. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, a Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) was introduced in 199…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Mahatma Gandhi Vidyapeetha Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…lowing claim of depreciation by following the revised computation of total income and the CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd, ITA Nos.2707 to 2709/Bang/2017 CO Nos.40 to 42/Band/2018 Page 36 of 41 284 ITR 323 (SC) which lays down that the claim which is not made by filing revised return of income before the AO cannot be entertained by the AO. On this aspect we find that the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been interpreted in the decisions rendered by Hon’ble High Courts not to exceed the power of the Tribunal nor the first appellat…

Gulbrandsen Chemicals Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

Appeal of the assessee is allowed, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 874/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2019AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 92

…ITA No.: 874 and 760/Ahd/2012 Assessment years: 2007-08 Page 1 of 21 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar VP and Mahavir Prasad JM] ITA No.: 874/Ahd/2012 Assessment year: 2007-08 Gulbrandsen Chemicals Pvt Ltd ……………………..Appellant On Coastal Highway, PO Mujpur Tal Padra Vadodara 391 440 [PAN: AABCG 0812 A] Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Vadodara ……………..…........Respondent Assessment year: 2007-08 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Vadodara ……………………..Appellant Vs Gulbrandsen Chemicals Pvt Ltd ……………..…........Respondent On Coastal…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda vs. Gulbrandsen Chemicals Pvt.Ltd., Baroda

Appeal of the assessee is allowed, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 760/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2019AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 92

…ITA No.: 874 and 760/Ahd/2012 Assessment years: 2007-08 Page 1 of 21 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar VP and Mahavir Prasad JM] ITA No.: 874/Ahd/2012 Assessment year: 2007-08 Gulbrandsen Chemicals Pvt Ltd ……………………..Appellant On Coastal Highway, PO Mujpur Tal Padra Vadodara 391 440 [PAN: AABCG 0812 A] Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Vadodara ……………..…........Respondent Assessment year: 2007-08 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Vadodara ……………………..Appellant Vs Gulbrandsen Chemicals Pvt Ltd ……………..…........Respondent On Coastal…

Vedanta Ltd (Successor to Cairn India Ltd), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi

ITA 6937/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Mishra, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 928(1)

…7 crore. The Assessing Officer allowed the claim of additional depreciation by relying on Explanation 5 to section 32(1)(ii) and also holding that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) does not permit him to take cognizance of a claim made during the course of assessment proceedings after the completion of the time for filing revised return. The assessee is aggrieved against the decision of the Assessing Officer in this regard. 20. Having heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record, we find that the ju…

Bina Sudhirkumar Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical

ITA 76/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ms. Bina Sudhirkumar Doshi Asst. Cit-24(1), B-601, Ganga Vihar, Mumbai Vs. Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 058 Pan/Gir No. Aajpd 0267 B (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Rahul Sarda & Appellant By Shri Sashank Dundu Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha : 26.11.2018 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019

For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 54Section 54F

…ing the order of the A.O. in taxing long term capital gains. On this issue, we note that the A.O. while considering the alternate claim of the assessee u/s. 54F has quoted from the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) for the proposition that in absence of revised return, the assessee cannot make a fresh claim. This has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A). Another reason given for the denial of 4 exemption u/s. 54F is that the assessee owns more than one residential house other than the new asset as found in the balance sheet. In this regard, we note that the…

Tata Marcopolo Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7290/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Tata Marcopolo Motors Ltd. Dy. Cit-1(3)(1) 1St Floor, Bombay House, Aaykar Bhawan, 24, Homi Mody Street, Vs. Mumbai-400 0020 Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aacct 5547 J (Appellant) : (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234C

…s been rejected by the A.O. solely on the ground that the assessee has not filed the same in the original return of income. This aspect has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) has expounded that the ITAT has powers to admit the grounds otherwise than by filing the original return. In the present case, in our considered opinion, the revised computation submitted by the assessee does not deserve to be rejected solely on the ground of not filing it along with the original return. 4 Accordingly, in the interest of…