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 367,302 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

M/S.Navigant Bpm (India) P. Ltd(Earlier Known As Revenue Med India P. Ltd), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, ground No.4

ITA 57/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 144C

…e made u/s 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that since the assessee has not made a claim in the return of income, same cannot be considered in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT [(2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)]. 5.1 Before the DRP, the objections were raised stating that the assessee’s unit was approved by the Internal Ministry Standing Committee, which is a valid approval for the purpose of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. Further it was stated that the assessee was granted the benefit of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act in the previous assessm…

Iljin Automotive Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT Company Circle 2(3), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1219/CHNY/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1219/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Iljin Automotive Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Plot No. B1 & B2, Sipcot, Industrial Vs. Tax, Park, Company Circle – 2(3), Irungattukottai, Chennai - 600 034. Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram, 602 105. [Pan: Aaaci 2641E] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri. M N Rangamani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT

…owed to be raised before the appellate authorities etc. Since, the facts on the basis of which the issues raised are on record at the assessment proceedings itself, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), we deem it fit to remit this issue to the AO for a fresh examination. The AO is :-4-: at full liberty to examine the claim and decide the issues in accordance with law. To this extent, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical pu…

Rajratan Global Wires Ltd., Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(1), Indore

In the result Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 589/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

…d Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383, provided such omission to raise it earlier was bonafide and not willful or unreasonable. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the judgment in the case of M/s. Goetze India Ltd 284 ITR 323 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) was not applicable to the facts of the case and deduction claimed to reduce the disallowance offered for tax u/s 14A of the Act while submitting the return was justified. Confirmation of disallowance is therefore, unjustified, improper and bad in law” 3. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records relating to issu…

Rieter India Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1551/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…(1) to sub- section (2) of section 115JB of the Act. The assessee had not made the aforesaid claim in its revised return of income. The CIT(A) applying the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geotze India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) held that any claim of assessee could be made through filing revised return of income. Since the assessee had not made the said claim in the return of income before the Assessing Officer, same could not be entertained at the appellate stage. 6. The assessee is in appeal against both the issues before us. 7 7. The learned Authorized Represe…

ACIT, Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore vs. Anugraha Valve Castings Ltd, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 379/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.379/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/S. Anugraha Valve Castings The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., Corporate Circle - 2, S.F. No.391/2, Sengods Coimbatore. Goundenpudur, Arasur Village, Coimbatore – 641 005. Pan: Aacca2285Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.62/Chny/2018 (In Ita No. 379/Chny/2018) Vs M/S. Anugraha Valve Castings The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Tax, Corporate Circle - 2, S.F. No.391/2, Sengods Coimbatore. Goundenpudur, Arasur Village, Coimbatore – 641 005. Pan: Aacca2285Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. Ruby George, Cit राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80I

…ncial year 2011-12 and deduction U/s.80IA of the Act by giving due weightage to the statutory form No.10CCB filed during the course of assessment proceedings by relying in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Goetze India Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 by holding that deductions can be claimed only by filing a reverse return of income. 4. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by directing the Ld.AO to admit the fresh claim made before the Ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings by relying in the very same decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Goe…

Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 942/MUM/2015[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalhindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. Anand House, 13Th Road, Off Linking Rd. ……………. Appellant Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aaach1407P V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Special Range–1, Mumbai Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. Anand House, 13Th Road, Off Linking Rd. ……………. Appellant Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aaach1407P V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Circle–9(2)(1), Mumbai Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. Anand House, 13Th Road, Off Linking Rd. ……………. Appellant Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aaach1407P V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–9(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri V. ChandrashekharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 143(3)Section 42(1)(a)

…ls Ltd. v/s CIT, [1972] 90 ITR 236 (All.); ii) CIT v/s Himgiri Foods Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 508 (Guj.); iii) CIT v/s Gold Tex Furnishing Industries, [2002] 276 ITR 164 (Del.); iv) CIT v/s P.R. Prabhakar, [2004] 276 ITR 176; v) Goetz India Ltd. v/s CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC); and vi) CIT v/s Pruthvi Brokers And Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). 22. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, the Assessing Officer may be directed to consider the revised return of income filed by the assessee and decide the claim made in the revised return of income. 23. The learned Departmental Repres…

Mondelez Uk Confectionery Production Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1721/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 115ASection 143(3)

…f the assessee is liable to tax @10% as per Section 115A, whereas inadvertently, assessee had offered the same at the tax rate of 15%. The CIT(A) rejected assessee’s claim by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., 157 Taxmann.com 1. Assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. It was contended by learned AR that assessee was having Royalty income which is liable to be taxed @10% as per provisions of Section 115A. Learned AR also placed on record the order passed by the AO for the A.Y.2009-10 wherein AO himself has charged Royalty income @ 10%. Undisputedly, assessee wa…

Mahugun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2817/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anandee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 276DSection 37(1)Section 43Section 43B

…vered by Section 153A of I.T. Act. She also placed reliance on the following case laws: i. CIT, Central-I vs. Manish Build Well (P.) Ltd. [2011] 16 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi) ii. Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 365 (SC) iii. Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC)/2006-TIO:-198-SC-IT. iv. National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 v. GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2002] 125 Taxman 963 (SC) vi. Filatex India Ltd. (2014-TIOL-1325-HC-DEL-IT) vii. Anil Kumar Bhatia 24 Taxmann.com 98 viii. Indu Lata Rangwala 2016-TIOL-967-HC-DEL-IT ix. E.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (Centr…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part

ITA 4046/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ot a case where the Assessing Officer did not have an opportunity to examine the claim put forth by the assessee. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs C/T, 284 ITR 323 (SC) to point out that a fresh claim could not have been entertained otherwise than by filing a revised return of income. Pertinently, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) does not seek to disentitle an appellate authority to admit a fresh claim provided it involves a point of law, and the relevant…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Orbit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5885/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv., Ajit

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.3260/DEL/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO, Ward-11(1), v. M/s. Orbit Infrastructure Gurgaon. Pvt. Ltd., C/o Bizzotel Hotel, 2390/3 Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Opp. Dhingra Motors, Gurgaon. TAN/PAN: AAACO 8256D (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.5885/DEL/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT, Circle-2, v. M/s. Orbit Infrastructure Gurgaon. Pvt. Ltd., C/o Bizzotel Hotel, 2390/3 Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Opp. Dhingra Motors, Gurgaon. TAN/PAN: AAACO 8256D (Appellant) (Responden…

ITO, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Orbit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3260/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv., Ajit

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

Zahir Shabbir Kachwalla, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1104/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1104/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Shri. Zahir Shabbir Ito 21(3)(5) Kachwalla, Mumbai 400051 F.No. 111, Silver Beach V. Chs, Off. V.S Marg Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Amypk5755C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Dr. K. Shivaram,Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. T.A Khan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1104/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2012-13. I.T.A. No.1104/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram,Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. T.A Khan, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69

…cause the assessee filed revised computation of income instead of filing revised return of income during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO keeping in view decision of Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Goetze(India) Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323(SC) . It was submitted that the appellate authorities can always accept revised claim filed during the assessment proceedings vide revised computation of income while only AO is debarred from accepting the said claim which is not filed by way of revised return of income keeping in view decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (Indi…

Forjet Leasing Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3633/MUM/2015[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 80I

…3633 & 3634/Mum/2015 revised return of income for AY 1997-98 correcting aforesaid errors, the AO refused to accept the explanations of the assessee keeping in view ratio of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323(SC). The learned CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by affirming the stand of the AO. 12. Aggrieved by dismissal of appeal by learned CIT(A) in second round of litigation, the assessee has filed an appeal before the tribunal. None appeared for assessee while learned DR supported the orders of authorities below. 13. We have consider…

Bhav Vardhan Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5578/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodm/S. Bhav Vardhan Trust Income Tax Officer Nirmal Niketan (Exemption) 1(1) Vs. 2, Dr. Bhajekar Street Mumbai, Mumbai 400004 Pan – Aaatb3631Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajesh P. Shah Respondent By: Shri Abdul Hakem M Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2018 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Mumbai, Dated 23.06.2016, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 02.12.2010 For A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee While Assailing The Order Of The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao Of Considering The Tax Claim Of Rs.19,87,100/- As New Claim On The Ground That There Was No Claim Made By Appellant In The Return Of Income. 2. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred Confirming The Action Of Ao Of Not Considering The Tax Expenses Of Rs. 19,87,100/- Incurred On The Object Of The Trust. The Ao Ought To Have Allowed The Same As It Is Allowable As Per Law.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakem M

Section 11(1)Section 143Section 143(3)

…t of exemption under Section 11(1) of the Act, thus, declined to accept the aforesaid contention of the assessee. The CIT(A), in order to fortify his opinion, relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (I) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 6. The assessee trust being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The learned Authorised representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal fairly conceded that the claim for considering the amount of TDS of Rs. 19,87,110/- as application of income…

Humcha Impex Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1413/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1413/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Humcha Impex Pvt. Ltd.....................…………………………………………..........................Appellant P-17, Kalakar Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 007. [Pan: Aabcc 3596 K] Ito Ward 12(3) Kolkata.............................................................................................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Saurabh Bagaria & Debosmita Mitra Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kapil Mondal, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 10, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 4, Kolkata Dated 18.01.2018 Whereby He Confirmed All The 3 Additions Made By The Ao To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

Section 10ASection 10BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…notices issued u/s 143(2) & 142(1) and only on the issue of a subsequent notice u/s 142(1) did the assessee reverse its claim of deduction u/s 10AA to 10B of the Act without filing a revised return. Relying on the case law of Goetze (lndia) Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) 284 ITR 323, the claim was rejected  That compared with the certificate issued by the ROC, there was variance in the date of change of name of the assessee with that as 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1413/K/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 claimed by the assessee (supra) and that the assessees' business was not a newly established 100% export oriented unit to be eligible to…

Ashok Kumar Ruia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1615/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Mohan, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 71

…passed the assessment order by not entertaining the claim which was not made in the original return of income ore revised return of income and the assessment was framed according to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the assessee can not make the claim of deduction other than by filing a revised return of income. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that the assessee did not claim the set off of the business loss of Rs.68,35,770/- against the income of other hea…

The Veer Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 39(4), New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2787/Del

ITA 2788/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi JainFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R

Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…, however, noted that no such claim was made by the assessee- society at the time of filing the return of income and no revised return have been filed. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) in which it was held that “A.O. has no power to entertain a fresh claim otherwise than by way of revised return.” The Ld. CIT(A) did not exercise his discretionary power and rejected this claim of assessee-society as well. Accordingly, appeal of assessee has been dismissed. 11 ITA.Nos.2787 & 2788/Del./2018 M/s. The Veer Cooperative Group Ho…

Thye Veer Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(4), New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2787/Del

ITA 2787/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi JainFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R

Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Durgapur vs. ACIT, Cir-Durgapur, Durgapur

ITA 422/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

…0A(3) disallowance of ₹25,00,000/- in rejecting the books of account and estimating profits @ 9% of the total turnover; thereby going against the fact on record and also in considering revised submissions in light of case law GOETZE (INDIA) LTD vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC); respectively. The assessee on the other hand pleads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating net profit @ 9% on gross receipts of ₹281,24,470; coming to ₹25,31,226/- as well as in confirming section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits of ₹8.25 lac despite the same forming as cash sales; respectively. 3. We advert to r…

ACIT, Cir-1, Durgapur vs. Shri Rakesh Kumar Chowdhury, Durgapur

ITA 1810/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68