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 367,194 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Force Motors Lts., Pune

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

ITA 1413/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1205 & 1206/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh M. PatelFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…profit and loss account of the year under consideration but booked as prior period expenses in the subsequent accounting years. AO denied the said claim of the assessee relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). 13. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by holding as under : “5.9.2 In the present case, the expenditure pertaining to the current year has been accounted in the subsequent years but not claimed as a expense in the returns filed for those years as prior period expense. The claim for allowing t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Force Motors Lts., Pune

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

ITA 1412/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1205 & 1206/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh M. PatelFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…profit and loss account of the year under consideration but booked as prior period expenses in the subsequent accounting years. AO denied the said claim of the assessee relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). 13. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by holding as under : “5.9.2 In the present case, the expenditure pertaining to the current year has been accounted in the subsequent years but not claimed as a expense in the returns filed for those years as prior period expense. The claim for allowing t…

Force Motors Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1206/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1205 & 1206/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh M. PatelFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…profit and loss account of the year under consideration but booked as prior period expenses in the subsequent accounting years. AO denied the said claim of the assessee relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). 13. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by holding as under : “5.9.2 In the present case, the expenditure pertaining to the current year has been accounted in the subsequent years but not claimed as a expense in the returns filed for those years as prior period expense. The claim for allowing t…

Force Motors Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1205/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1205 & 1206/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh M. PatelFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…profit and loss account of the year under consideration but booked as prior period expenses in the subsequent accounting years. AO denied the said claim of the assessee relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). 13. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by holding as under : “5.9.2 In the present case, the expenditure pertaining to the current year has been accounted in the subsequent years but not claimed as a expense in the returns filed for those years as prior period expense. The claim for allowing t…

DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S J. K. Tyre & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 520/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)

…ee did not make any claim in the return of income u/s 139( 1) of the Act, or even in a revised return, according to AO, it is not entitled to make any further claim in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd -vs- CIT [284 ITR 323 (SC) (2006)1. Accordingly, the claim of deduction35(1)(ii) of the Act @125% of the amount paid to IIT, Chennai, cou1d not be acceded by the AO and he added the same. J. K. Tyre & Industries Ltd., AY: 2009-10 12. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who allowed the assessee’s ground of appeal. Aggrieved, revenue is before…

DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S J. K. Tyre & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 519/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)

…ee did not make any claim in the return of income u/s 139( 1) of the Act, or even in a revised return, according to AO, it is not entitled to make any further claim in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd -vs- CIT [284 ITR 323 (SC) (2006)1. Accordingly, the claim of deduction35(1)(ii) of the Act @125% of the amount paid to IIT, Chennai, cou1d not be acceded by the AO and he added the same. J. K. Tyre & Industries Ltd., AY: 2009-10 12. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who allowed the assessee’s ground of appeal. Aggrieved, revenue is before…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jammu vs. M/S Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 is allowed, while that of the Revenue for AY 2005-06, dismissed

ITA 571/ASR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 544/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)
Section 154Section 80Section 80I

…Balaji Alloys & Ors. v. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 335 (J&K). The assessee, accordingly, raised an additional ground toward the same in its appeal for AY 2006-07 pending before the ld. CIT(A). The same stands denied by him following Goteze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). For AY 2005- 06, the second year under appeal before us, the assessee moved the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 154, i.e., in view of the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. The same was, again, denied on the ground that there was nothing on record to show that the excise-duty refund stands credited to its operating statement by…

Kashmir Steel Rolling Milss., Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax .Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 is allowed, while that of the Revenue for AY 2005-06, dismissed

ITA 544/ASR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 544/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)
Section 154Section 80Section 80I

…Balaji Alloys & Ors. v. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 335 (J&K). The assessee, accordingly, raised an additional ground toward the same in its appeal for AY 2006-07 pending before the ld. CIT(A). The same stands denied by him following Goteze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). For AY 2005- 06, the second year under appeal before us, the assessee moved the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 154, i.e., in view of the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. The same was, again, denied on the ground that there was nothing on record to show that the excise-duty refund stands credited to its operating statement by…

Vijay Kundu, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 808/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 263

…should have treated the cash deposit of Rs.65,00,000/- in the specified banks as undisclosed income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) " CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H) " Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs S.P. (1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal.) " CIT Vs T. Narayana Pai (1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kar.) " CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) 15. The ld. CIT cancelled the order passed by the AO and directed him to make fresh assessment by observing in para 3.2.4 of the imp…

Jindal Intellicom Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3794/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2010-11] Jindal Intellicom Limited Vs. The I.T.O 28, Najafgarh Road Ward – 4(2) New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Nayyar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 10A

…had filed its return of income on 21.09.2010. Records further show that when the assessee made claim of deduction u/s 10A of the Act, the same was denied by the AO who drew support from the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd 284 ITR 223 which laid down the ratio that the AO cannot entertain a claim of deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return and since the assessee has not filed any revised return in respect of claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Act, the same was denied. 5. We find that the first appellate authority also heavily relied upon the said judgment of the Hon…

Growmore Exports Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 31 Cen RG 7, Mumbai

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

ITA 1220/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 139(5)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (AM) & Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 1220/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Growmore Exports Limited ACIT CC-31 32, Madhuli Vs. Central Range-7 Dr. Annie Besant Road Now DCIT, CC-4(3) Mumbai-400 018. Room No. 1921 Air India Building PAN :AAACG4939P Nairman Point Mumbai-400 021. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Dharmesh Shah & Shri Dhaval Shah Department by Dr. P. Daniel Date of Hearing 28.6.2018 Date of Pronouncement 06.7.2018 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against…

M/S Bhandari Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 665/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…offered the said income as business income and, therefore, in the absence of revised return, the AO had no jurisdiction to accept the claim of the assessee. She has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC). Further, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee is trying to set up a new case at this stage by claiming the index cost of mutual fund whereas the assessee has never claimed so even while offering the said income as business income. The ld. D/R has further submitted that the ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is only regarding t…

St- Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 609/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Senior DR
Section 143Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.609/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ST-Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 24 (2), S – 327, Lower Ground Floor, New Delhi. Greater Kailash – II, New Delhi – 110 048. (PAN : AAMCS1022K) ITA No.168/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) DCIT, Circle 24 (2), vs. ST-Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. S – 327, Lower Ground Floor, Greater Kailash – II, New Delhi – 110 048. (PAN : AAMCS1022K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri S.D. Kapila…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. St Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 168/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Senior DR
Section 143Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.609/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ST-Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 24 (2), S – 327, Lower Ground Floor, New Delhi. Greater Kailash – II, New Delhi – 110 048. (PAN : AAMCS1022K) ITA No.168/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) DCIT, Circle 24 (2), vs. ST-Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. S – 327, Lower Ground Floor, Greater Kailash – II, New Delhi – 110 048. (PAN : AAMCS1022K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri S.D. Kapila…

Sri Sri Gonesh Jew Thakur Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 938/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 938/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Sri Gonesh Jew Thakur Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (PAN: AADTS9564J) (Exemption), Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 05.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement 27.06.2018 For the Appellant Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR For the Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal preferred by the assessee…

Income-Tax Officer, Pune vs. Enterprised DB Software India Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1105/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Dr. Vivek AggarwalFor Respondent: None
Section 10Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 40aSection 80A(5)

…should be allowed for the A.Y. 2009-10. However, the AO denied the claim of deduction u/s.10B of the Act. AO also denied the alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Limited 284 ITR 323. AO also rejected the reliance of the assessee on the CBDT Circular No.XIV, dated 11-04-1955 stating that the time limit to file the revised return has elapsed and any deduction can be made only through a valid return of income as required u/s.80A(5) of the Act. Eventually, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.10B as well as alternate cla…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Jugal Kishore Arora, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 157/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 80

…return of income under section 139 of the Act, it is stated that this objection of the appellant has some force. The AO has failed to consider that after the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 10 ITA.No.157/Del./2015 Shri Jugal Kishore Arora, New Delhi. 284 ITR 323 (SC) there have been a number of decisions that have held that just because the assessee could not file a revise return, the claim made by the assessee cannot be ignored. In the case of CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. 360 ITR 682 Delhi, it has been held that if the assessee files a revised computation of income before the AO during the assess…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai vs. T.T.Krishnamachari & Co., Chennai

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

ITA 2456/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2308/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co., Vs The Acit, No.6, Cathedral Road, Gopalapuram, Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai – 600 086. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aaaft0395D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2456/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Acit, Vs M/S. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co., Non Corporate Circle 3, No.6, Cathedral Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 086. Pan: Aaaft0395D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 08.05.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: 08.05.2018
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

…essee and not the assessee”. However the Ld.AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) refused to entertain the ground since the same was not claimed in the return of income relying in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Goetze India Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323. 6.1 At the outset we find the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 empowers the Tribunal to admit any fresh legal ground raised before it for the first time during the course of appellate proceedings. Drawing strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, w…

T.T.Krishmachari & Co, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle -3, Chennai

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

ITA 2308/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2308/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co., Vs The Acit, No.6, Cathedral Road, Gopalapuram, Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai – 600 086. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aaaft0395D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2456/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Acit, Vs M/S. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co., Non Corporate Circle 3, No.6, Cathedral Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 086. Pan: Aaaft0395D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : 08.05.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: 08.05.2018
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

…essee and not the assessee”. However the Ld.AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) refused to entertain the ground since the same was not claimed in the return of income relying in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Goetze India Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323. 6.1 At the outset we find the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 empowers the Tribunal to admit any fresh legal ground raised before it for the first time during the course of appellate proceedings. Drawing strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, w…

Mahesh H. Hinduja, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 176/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Dr. A.L. Sainishri Mahesh H. Hinduja 501, Mahir, 15Th Road Main Avenue Junction ……………. Appellant Santacruz (W), Mumbai 400 054 Pan – Aaaph3488B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–21(3)(3), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Subhash ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Mahesh H. Hinduja 501, Mahir, 15th Road Main Avenue Junction ……………. Appellant Santacruz (W), Mumbai 400 054 PAN – AAAPH3488B v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–21(3)(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Subhash Shetty Revenue by : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing – 18.06.2018 Date of Order – 20.06.2018 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is against order dated 28th September 2016, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–3…