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 367,282 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

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 4370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, “एच” मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Skylark Build ACIT, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAZFS0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Skylark Build ACIT, Central Circle-4(2) 4…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3237/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, “एच” मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Skylark Build ACIT, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAZFS0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Skylark Build ACIT, Central Circle-4(2) 4…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhakar M. Shetty, Mumbai

ITA 2906/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, “एच” मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Skylark Build ACIT, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAZFS0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Skylark Build ACIT, Central Circle-4(2) 4…

Enam Asset Management Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3010/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Enam Asset Management Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Company Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax – 3(1) 810, Raheja Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan Free Press Journal Road Mumbai Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaace3554C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10Section 10(15)(iv)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D ”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM M/s. Enam Asset Management Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Company Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax – 3(1) 810, Raheja Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan Free Press Journal Road Mumbai Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No.AAACE3554C Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jignesh R. Shah Revenue by Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date of Hearing 09/08/2018 Date of Pronouncement 27/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 8 Mumbai dated 27/02/2015 for A.…

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Boulevard Servicess Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1577/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am ] Assessment Years : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, DR & Shri Saurabh Kumar,Addl.CIT,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…n of Supreme Court in the case of the National Thermal Power (supra) to observe that the purpose that the purpose of assessment is to tax real income. This court taking note of the decisions of Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Limited v. CIT, reported in 284 ITR 323 and National Thermal Power (supra) a in case of Mitesh Impex had observed as under: “38. It thus becomes clear that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) is confined to the powers of the assessing officer and accepting a claim without revised return. This is what Supreme Court…

ACIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Boulevard Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 2070/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am ] Assessment Years : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, DR & Shri Saurabh Kumar,Addl.CIT,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…n of Supreme Court in the case of the National Thermal Power (supra) to observe that the purpose that the purpose of assessment is to tax real income. This court taking note of the decisions of Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Limited v. CIT, reported in 284 ITR 323 and National Thermal Power (supra) a in case of Mitesh Impex had observed as under: “38. It thus becomes clear that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) is confined to the powers of the assessing officer and accepting a claim without revised return. This is what Supreme Court…

ACIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Boulevard Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1753/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am ] Assessment Years : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, DR & Shri Saurabh Kumar,Addl.CIT,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…n of Supreme Court in the case of the National Thermal Power (supra) to observe that the purpose that the purpose of assessment is to tax real income. This court taking note of the decisions of Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Limited v. CIT, reported in 284 ITR 323 and National Thermal Power (supra) a in case of Mitesh Impex had observed as under: “38. It thus becomes clear that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) is confined to the powers of the assessing officer and accepting a claim without revised return. This is what Supreme Court…

ACIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Boulevard Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1752/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am ] Assessment Years : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, DR & Shri Saurabh Kumar,Addl.CIT,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…n of Supreme Court in the case of the National Thermal Power (supra) to observe that the purpose that the purpose of assessment is to tax real income. This court taking note of the decisions of Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Limited v. CIT, reported in 284 ITR 323 and National Thermal Power (supra) a in case of Mitesh Impex had observed as under: “38. It thus becomes clear that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) is confined to the powers of the assessing officer and accepting a claim without revised return. This is what Supreme Court…

Boulevard Servicess Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata

ITA 1743/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am ] Assessment Years : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, DR & Shri Saurabh Kumar,Addl.CIT,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…n of Supreme Court in the case of the National Thermal Power (supra) to observe that the purpose that the purpose of assessment is to tax real income. This court taking note of the decisions of Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Limited v. CIT, reported in 284 ITR 323 and National Thermal Power (supra) a in case of Mitesh Impex had observed as under: “38. It thus becomes clear that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) is confined to the powers of the assessing officer and accepting a claim without revised return. This is what Supreme Court…

Boulevard Servicess Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata

ITA 1742/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am ] Assessment Years : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, DR & Shri Saurabh Kumar,Addl.CIT,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…n of Supreme Court in the case of the National Thermal Power (supra) to observe that the purpose that the purpose of assessment is to tax real income. This court taking note of the decisions of Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Limited v. CIT, reported in 284 ITR 323 and National Thermal Power (supra) a in case of Mitesh Impex had observed as under: “38. It thus becomes clear that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) is confined to the powers of the assessing officer and accepting a claim without revised return. This is what Supreme Court…

Boulevard Servicess Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata

ITA 1741/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am ] Assessment Years : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, DR & Shri Saurabh Kumar,Addl.CIT,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…n of Supreme Court in the case of the National Thermal Power (supra) to observe that the purpose that the purpose of assessment is to tax real income. This court taking note of the decisions of Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Limited v. CIT, reported in 284 ITR 323 and National Thermal Power (supra) a in case of Mitesh Impex had observed as under: “38. It thus becomes clear that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) is confined to the powers of the assessing officer and accepting a claim without revised return. This is what Supreme Court…

M/S. Himalya International Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…he revised return is not voluntarily and omission to make such claim in the original return of income was not bonafide. Even otherwise also, if one goes by the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (2006) reported in 284 ITR 323, if the claim has not been made before the AO by way of revised return then same can be made before the appellate authorities. This principle has been reiterated and explained by various judgments like in the case of CIT vs. Ramco International (2011) 332 ITR 306 (P&H). Accordingly, we hold that the claim of deduction u/s 80IC to the assessee can…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himalaya International Ltd., Himachal Pradesh

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3839/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…he revised return is not voluntarily and omission to make such claim in the original return of income was not bonafide. Even otherwise also, if one goes by the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (2006) reported in 284 ITR 323, if the claim has not been made before the AO by way of revised return then same can be made before the appellate authorities. This principle has been reiterated and explained by various judgments like in the case of CIT vs. Ramco International (2011) 332 ITR 306 (P&H). Accordingly, we hold that the claim of deduction u/s 80IC to the assessee can…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himalaya International Ltd., Himachal Pradesh

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3838/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…he revised return is not voluntarily and omission to make such claim in the original return of income was not bonafide. Even otherwise also, if one goes by the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (2006) reported in 284 ITR 323, if the claim has not been made before the AO by way of revised return then same can be made before the appellate authorities. This principle has been reiterated and explained by various judgments like in the case of CIT vs. Ramco International (2011) 332 ITR 306 (P&H). Accordingly, we hold that the claim of deduction u/s 80IC to the assessee can…

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 805/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…this issue in the draft assessment order, which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, in strictly legal terms, the said objection doesn't fall under the provisions of Section 144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. ITA No.805 and 2744/Ahd/2017 24.3 On merits, the DRP has noted the CIT (A)'s order of earlier 2 years and concur…

Gujarat Flurochemicals Limited., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 2744/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…this issue in the draft assessment order, which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, in strictly legal terms, the said objection doesn't fall under the provisions of Section 144C of the I.T. Act 1961. 24.2 Also in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction in the total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. ITA No.805 and 2744/Ahd/2017 24.3 On merits, the DRP has noted the CIT (A)'s order of earlier 2 years and concur…

Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 6055/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…ssioner of Income-tax IV vs. India Visit.com private Limited (219 CTR 603) wherein the expenditure on website have been allowed as revenue expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld AO has erred in placing reliance on the case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 323) and holding that no claim can be made at the time of assessment which have not been made at the time of return ignoring the fact that: 2.5.1 Website development cost as revenue expenditure was submitted as an alternate plea, without prejudice to the original contention of the assessee, in case the depreciation is not allowed on website developme…

Mrs.Rity Sanjay Toshniwal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 21(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4258/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.4258/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mrs. Ritu Sanjay Toshniwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 206, Casa Grande Tower-B Income Tax-21(3) Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapt-6005-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Rakesh Mohan, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…been added back / disallowed during assessment proceedings for AYs 2007- 08 to 2010-11 and therefore, the same should be reduced from the income of the impugned AY. However, Ld. AO, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR 323, opined that the new claim could not be admitted otherwise than by way of filing the revised return of income. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same without any success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 31/05/2018 wherein Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s submissions on the premise that that the assessment for earlier years had…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. International Tractors Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 6239/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit (Ltu), International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi. Sonalika House, Vs. 283, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Bansal, CA
Section 14A

…pursuance of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142. However, in the instant case the due date for filing the revised return has already expired. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 323, he held that no claim can be entertained by the Assessing Officer without filing the revised return. He further noted that the assessee has not substantiated with documentary evidence that it is eligible for deduction u/s 80JJA and liability of Rs.51,21,024/- was incurred in this assessment year. Thus, on merit the claim of the assessee fails.…

DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi vs. M/S International Tractors Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 5756/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit (Ltu), International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi. Sonalika House, Vs. 283, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Bansal, CA
Section 14A

…pursuance of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142. However, in the instant case the due date for filing the revised return has already expired. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 323, he held that no claim can be entertained by the Assessing Officer without filing the revised return. He further noted that the assessee has not substantiated with documentary evidence that it is eligible for deduction u/s 80JJA and liability of Rs.51,21,024/- was incurred in this assessment year. Thus, on merit the claim of the assessee fails.…