How many judgments cite Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT?

1,842 judgments on BharatTax cite Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 153A.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

284 ITR 323Supreme Court of India2006#13 most cited

What is Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

1,842

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Goetze (India) Ltd v CIT · new claim by assessee · additional ground · revised return of income · section 139(5) · Assessing Officer powers · CIT(A) powers · ITAT powers · assessment proceedings · fresh claim · 284 ITR 323

Also reported as

157 Taxmann 1204 CTR 182157 Taxmann.com 1

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 153A Section 143(1)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 139(5)book profits section 115j revenue expenditure section 115jb capital expenditure disallowance under section 14a section 32 section 254 section 37(1)transfer pricing adjustment liable to tax

Judgments citing Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

Mangala Shivadas Dindokar, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, 41(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 3438/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Mangala Shivadas Dindokar Ito-41(1)(3) 1301, G Wing, Palacia, 607, Kautilya Ghodbunder Road, Vs. Bhavan, G Block Hiranandani Estate, Thane Bandra Kurla Maharashtra-400 615. Complex, Bandra E Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Ahppd0620B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Annavaran KosuriFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Kale

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 54

…he cost of acquisition computed is subject to the valuation report and rectification will be done and once valuation report is received. The Ld. AO has finally placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) and held that no new claim would be entertained because the appellant has not filed Return of Income under section 139(1) or 148 of the Act. To sum up, the Ld. AO denied the claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. (supra). 3. Aggrieved by the o…

Bajrang Wire Products (India) Private Limited vs. DCIT Circle -4-Jaipur, Rjn-C-(104)(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 901/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Athrav Mundra, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharma Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250Section 3Section 80ASection 80J

…expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier. 2.12 Your honour, the AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) (Kindly see paper book page no. 1-2) wherein it was held that any deduction/allowance which was not claimed in the original return can only be claimed by way of a revised return to be filed within the time allowed of the Act. The ARrelied on the decision held in Dcit, Cir-4, Kolkata, Kolkata vs Mackintosh Burn Ltd,, Kolkata on 15 March, 2017…

Maya Rathore, Jaipur vs. Assessing Authority, Jaipur

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

ITA 823/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 194HSection 250Section 44A

…ssment year. 1.9 In similar case as decided by Supreme Court of IndiaGoetz India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) on 24 March 2006 (2006)204CTR(SC)182, [2006]284ITR323(SC), AIRONLINE 2006 SC 81, (2006) 157 TAXMAN 1, (2006) 204 CUR TAX REP 182, (2006) 284 ITR 323, (2006) 195 TAXATION 228 “Goetz India Ltd. (the appellant) filed its income tax return without claiming a particular deduction. Later, during the assessment proceedings, the appellant made a request to the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow this deduction by filing a letter, not by revising the return. The AO rejected the request on the ground that…

DCIT Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai, Air India vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4869/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawaldy. Cit, Central Circle-3(2) Aarti Industries Limited R. No. 1913, 19Th Floor, 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aabca 2787 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue, Against The Order Dated 30.10.2023 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 In The Appeal Reads As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowances Made By The A.O. To Restrict The Deduction U/S. 80Ia Of The Act Despite The Fact That The Issue Has Not Attained Finality & Pending For Adjudication Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court? – Rs.396,81,798/- 3. Briefly The Facts Are, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In Manufacturing & Sale Of Chemicals, Fertilizers & Intermediaries. For Such Manufacturing Activity, The Assessee Has Set Up A Plant At Plot No. 801/23, Gidc, Phase-Iii

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 133(6)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. CIT, Central Circle-3(2) Aarti Industries Limited R. No. 1913, 19th Floor, 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2nd Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 PAN/GIR No. AABCA 2787 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: This is an appeal by the Revenue…

Om Sree Siva Shankar Educational Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 279/VIZ/2025[23017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2025

Bench: The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Lucknow.

Section 10Section 119(2)Section 143(1)

…inal return. Under the Income Tax Act, claimed or submissions not included in the original return cannot be accepted unless a revised return is filed. This principle is in line with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Ltd vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) which established that modifications or claim not made in the original return must be addressed through the filing of a revised return. Therefore, the appellant’s claim for exemption U/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) raised during the appellate proceedings cannot be entertained as it was not included in the original return. Accordingly, the appeal of the…

Shree Shantanu Vidhyapeeth Society, Indore, M.P vs. The Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 640/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…). These three reasons are: - (i) The assessee has not filed revised return claiming exemption u/s 11/12. Ld. AR pointed out that although the AO has not specifically mentioned but this adverse observation may be in tune with *Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)* wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a fresh claim can be made only by filing a revised return. - (ii) The assessee has not filed Form No. 10B by due date for filing of return. - (iii) The 2 nd proviso to section 12A(2) relied by assessee became effective from 01.04.2021 and the same was not applicable for AY 2018-19 under considera…

Dy.C.I.T., CC-4(4), Mumbai vs. Capsave Finance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3872/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D SethFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr

Section 139(5)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of v/s. CAPSAVE FINANCE PVT. बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle LTD., – 4(4), Room No. 420, 4th Unit No. 501, Wing D, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, G- Lotus Corporate Park, Block, BKC, Bandra East, Western Express Mumbai – 400051, Highway, Goregaon Maharashtra (East), Mumbai – 400 063, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAACA4296Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Niraj D Seth Respondent by : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. D…

Shyam Metalics Amd Energy Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1074/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 68

…ld. CIT(A). We observe that the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT v. Mitesh Impex (367 ITR 85) after considering the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC v. CIT [1998] (229 ITR 383) and Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] (284 ITR 323) has held that, if a claim which is available in law is not raised either inadvertently or an account of erroneous understanding of complex legal position, such a relief cannot be shut up for all the times 7 Shyam Metalics And Engery Ltd to come merely because it is raised for the first time in appellate proceedings in absence of a revised retur…

Hemant Dhawan, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-58(3), Delhi

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

ITA 5625/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Hemant Dhawan, Vs. Ito, Ward 58 (3), D-371, Second Floor, Anand Vihar, Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Afppd1587F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Anand, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 11.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That Ld. Cit (A) Rejected The Plea Of The Assessee That Assessee Has Claimed Certain Legal Claim In Revised Return Of Income Filed Before The Assessing Officer. However, As Per The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In Goetze (India)

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. SR

…see submitted that ld. CIT (A) rejected the plea of the assessee that assessee has claimed certain legal claim in revised return of income filed before the Assessing Officer. However, as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Goetze (India) 2 Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Assessing Officer may not have power to entertain new claim, however appellate authorities have power. Therefore, we find force in the contention of the assessee that ld. CIT (A) should have entertain the claim of the assessee. Therefore, we find force in the contention of the assessee to proceed to take up the other grounds of appeal o…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4069/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

…return. The Ld. CIT(A) has rendered contradictory findings with respect to the claim of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of Water Treatment plant and ESOP, and he ought to have applied the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323), as followed in relation to other issues by the Ld. CIT(A). 28. The Ld. AR argued that, firstly, it is incorrect to say that the assessee has not made any claim in the return of income. The assessee, through the notes to the computation forming part of return of income, had made a claim of deduction of ESOP as an allowable expenditure. The Hon’…

Grasim Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,

ITA 2897/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

…return. The Ld. CIT(A) has rendered contradictory findings with respect to the claim of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of Water Treatment plant and ESOP, and he ought to have applied the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323), as followed in relation to other issues by the Ld. CIT(A). 28. The Ld. AR argued that, firstly, it is incorrect to say that the assessee has not made any claim in the return of income. The assessee, through the notes to the computation forming part of return of income, had made a claim of deduction of ESOP as an allowable expenditure. The Hon'…

Ganesh Polychem Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

…claim made before the appellate authority is admissible; (b) On Merits-Export incentives qualify as capital receipt, not liable to tax. 49. With regard to admissibility of claim, reliance placed by the CIT(A) on judgment of Goetze India Limited vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) is highly misplaced, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment was in the context of power of the AO to entertain a fresh claim made otherwise than by a revised return within time but the same in no manner impinged on the power of the CIT(A) / Tribunal u/s 254 of the Act to permit a new claim. (i)Further, the ld. Counsel also submitted that…

Natesan Ekambaram, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

ITA 2873/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

For Appellant: Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,‘ए’न्यायपीठ,चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्रीएसएसधिश्वनेत्ररधि, न्याधयकसदस्यएिंश्रीएस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखासदस्यकेसमक्ष BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, DCIT, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [PAN:ACKPE-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant by : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CA. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by…

Rima Jayant Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 & 2 of the

ITA 3741/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing)

Section 24Section 254(1)Section 57Section 6(6)

…calculation of period of stay in India to substantiate her stand “resident but not ordinary resident”. The assessing officer not accepted the revised computation of income by taking shelter of 2 Rima Jayant Shah decision of Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. 284 ITR 323. The assessee earned income from house property in foreign country which was offered to tax as income from ‘other source’. The assessee also incurred expenses which were claimed under section 57, however, the assessing officer disregarded such contention and treated the entire income from house property and disallowed the expenses. The ld. C…

Earc Trust - SC 135, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 22(3)(1), Parimal Chamber

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

ITA 3283/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalearc Trust –Sc 135 1St Floor, Edelweiss House, Off Cst Road, Kalina, ............... Appellant Santacruz-East V/S Income Tax Officer, ……………… Respondent Ward-22(3)(1), Piramal Chamber Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kalyani/Ajay DhootFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 115Section 115TSection 143(1)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER EARC Trust –SC 135 1st Floor, Edelweiss House, Off CST Road, Kalina, ............... Appellant Santacruz-East v/s Income Tax Officer, ……………… Respondent Ward-22(3)(1), Piramal Chamber Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Kalyani/Ajay Dhoot Revenue by : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 26/08/2025 Date of Order - 28/08/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 29/03/2025, pas…

Bhavani Industries India LLP, Rajkot vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Rajkot

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

ITA 256/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…e assessee is neither manufacture or produces things Bhavani Industries India LLP ITA Nos.247 to 250 /RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs : 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.) or articles at Rudrapur unit. The same is held by the Apex court in the case of GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (S.C) that if any deduction is required to be claimed after filing of the return, it can be claimed through revised return only, not by way of letter. Therefore, the deduction under section 80-IA of Rs. 1,02,46,156/-, was rejected by the assessing officer. 55. On appeal, by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee statin…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Bhawani Industries India LLP, Rajkot

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

ITA 249/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

Income Tax Officer..E..1..2..Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Christ Church Byculla, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 11(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…se its return of income to prove what is being claimed now, consequent upon the selection of the case for regular scrutiny. In this regard, the AO placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd v/s CIT, reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). Accordingly, rejecting the claim of the assessee, the entire amount of INR 5,26,41,905 was deemed to be the income of the assessee during the year under consideration as per the provisions of section 11(3) of the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, after comparing the details mentioned Schedule-I of the ITR with the details fil…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technoligies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 506/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

…preciating the fact that the same was claimed u/s.80IC of the I.T. Act, during assessment proceeding and without revising its return of income and in contravention of decision of Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT(2006) CTR (SC) 182: (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 5. The order of the Assessing Officer may be restored and that of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi be vacated. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal. 62. Grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in allowing the claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. 63. After hea…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1660/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I