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 367,181 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

ITO 18(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Zanobia H. Bhamgara Legal Heir of Late Hormuz M. Bhamgara, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5016/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 18(1)(5) V. Mrs. Zenobia H. Bhamgara Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Legal Heir Of Late Hormuz M. Bhamgara 618, A-1, Bhiwandiwala Terrace, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Girgaun Road, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 002

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidyadhar

Section 54ESection 54FSection 55(2)(a)Section 55(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer – 18(1)(5) v. Mrs. Zenobia H. Bhamgara Room No. 206, 2nd Floor, Legal Heir of Late Hormuz M. Bhamgara 618, A-1, Bhiwandiwala Terrace, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Girgaun Road, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 002 PAN NO: AGNPB 0574 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department by : Shri V. Vidyadhar Date of Hearing : 03.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD 1.…

ACIT - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Progressive Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5317/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-4(2)(1), M/S Progressive Share Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacp6712H

Section 14ASection 43(5)Section 73

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘आई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “I”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT-4(2)(1), M/s Progressive Share Room No.642, 6th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1st Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AAACP6712H Shri M. V. Rajguru-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue b…

Bayer Cropscience Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7619/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Paras S. Savla, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swarup, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

…arious additional claims made by the assessee on the ground that additional claims made by the assessee cannot be allowed at this stage without filing revised return by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has filed elaborate written submissions on additions made by the AO which has been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee partly allowed the appeal, wherein he has de…

M/S. Delite Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 261/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Siddhartha Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 194J

…tation in terms of Schedule-6 of the Companies Act, the prior period adjustment ought to have been shown in the appropriation section. The assessee has neither filed revised return to correct this anamoly relying upon the judgement of Goetze India Ltd. Vs CIT 204 CTR 182. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the action made by the AO. 11. The ld. AR at the time of hearing of the matter submitted that in the preceding year i.e. A.Y.2005-06 an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was debited in the profit and loss account under the head “other expenses” as provision for bad and doubtful debts. The provision was thus directly debited to the pr…

DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 157/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Srihari, CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…al? It is needless to mention that the aid issue was not examined by the A,O. during the course of Assessment proceedings. 2. Was not the Ld CIT(A) incorrect by not adhering to the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (I) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 whereby the Hon'ble Court held that the deduction claimed by wav of a letter before the A.O. could be disallowed on the ground that there is no provision in the Act to ITA No.157/Kol/2017 M/s. Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2008-09 2 make amendment in the return without filing a revised return? Was he not incorrect by not following the observ…

Lalita P. Modi, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1787/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 54Section 54F

…O was incorrect in rejecting claim only on the ground that the assessee has not made any claim of deduction u/s 54F by filing revised return in view 3 ITA 1787/Mum/2016 of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Goetze India Ltd (2006) 284 ITR 223 (SC). 4. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Goetze India Ltd (supra) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under:- 3.3 I have carefully gone through the assessment order as well as the written submission of…

ITO, Non-Corporate Ward -3(1), Chennai vs. Ananya Srikanth, Chennai

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

ITA 2115/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: 04.04.2018For Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन एन.आर आर.एस एस. गणेशन गणेशन,"याियक "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम" सद"य एन एन आर आर एस एस गणेशन गणेशन BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2115/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Ananya Srikanth, Non-Corporate Ward 3(1), New No.11, Subbaraya Avenue, Chennai. Abhiramapuram, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. PAN: BGRPS5102H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"…

Manjeet Singh Duggal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, ground of assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 177/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 177/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Manjeet Singh Duggal, A.C.I.T., Vs. 135-B, Ram Gali No. 3, Raja Circle-1, Park, Jaipur-302001 Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABFPD 5158 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 202/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke A.C.I.T., Manjeet Sing…

ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Natural Histroy Society, Mumbai

In the result, Cross objection is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5473/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.5473/Mum/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai M/S. Bombay Natural History Society, Vs. Horn Bill House, Opp Lion Gate, Sbs Road Mumbai – 400 023 Pan No.Aaatb1708Q (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh K. BhatFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan

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

…re the completion of the assessment proceedings which he failed to do so and thus, the claim of the assessee would have resulted into reduction of income returned which is not permissible under the Act and thus, following the case of Goetze India Ltd., vs CIT 284 ITR 323, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 13. After taking into the statement of the learned AR, we find that it would be in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter is restored back to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the same in the light of the decision cited by learned AR in the case of CIT vs Pruthvi Brokers & Share…

Global Logic Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1672/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Global Logic Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd Income Tax, Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadcr5222K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K. Srinivas Reddy, DR

Section 143(3)

…the assessee also submitted that the assessee has filed the revised return of income within the time limit making a fresh claim and that the same ought to have been considered as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (S.C). Further, he also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 100 (S.C) for the proposition that there is no specific requirement to disallow the expenditure in the hands of the payer as well as the recipient when the tax rates remain the same. Alternativel…

Thiruvananthapuram Road Development Co. Ltd, Orrissa vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

ITA 622/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

Section 143Section 253Section 32

…the assessee to claim a deduction before the appellate authority which could not have been claimed before the AO. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has further observed that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT' [2006] 284 ITR 323/157 Taxman 1 regarding the restriction of making the claim through a revised return was limited to the powers of the Assessing Authority and the said judgment does not impinge on the power or negate the powers of the appellate authorities to entertain such claim by way of additional ground. Reliance can also be placed in this regard on the decisi…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Thirvanthapuram Road Development Company Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

ITA 4346/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2011-12

Section 143Section 253Section 32

Gvr Power & Infrastructure Limited, Kadiyam vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 530/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal

Section 92C

…s are not barred to entertain the additional claim of the assessee during the appellate proceedings. This view is supported by the case laws relied upon by the assessee as well as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323. In the assessee’s case the assessee has made disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A of the Act, but there was no exempt income as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the issue required to be remitted back to the file of the A.O. to consider the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act on the facts and m…

Mr. Manoj Kumar Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. DDIT, International Taxation, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 389/CTK/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR

Section 143(1)Section 154(2)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Manoj Kumar Nayak, Vs. JCIT(OSD), International Plot No.N-5/416, IRC Village, Taxation, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : ADVPN 7849 L (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.C.Bhadra, AR िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR सुनवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 19/04/2018 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement 17/05/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale,…

Cummins India Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 309/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…the assessee before the Assessing Officer made a claim of bad debts written off totaling ₹ 9.32 crores. The Assessing Officer did not allow the said claim of assessee, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 29. The CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer in denying the aforesaid claim, against which the assessee is in appeal. 30. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee before us pointed out that claim of bad debts written off was made before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, which was not…

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5977/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…349 ITR 336 (Bom). The AO has not allowed the claim of deprecation by observing that assessee cannot 3 make a fresh claim without filing revise return of income in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee relying on the Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra). Aggrieved, now Revenue is in second appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed copy of Tribunal order in assessee’s own cas…

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tauiran Iron & Steel Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1284/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.B. DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande-DR

Section 144CSection 254(1)

…aim. The A.0 while declining to consider the entitlement of the assessee company towards 'depreciation' and 'Interest', therein fortified his act by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of : Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 157 Taxmann 1 (SC), on the basis of which the A.0 concluded that he was divested of his power to entertain a claim of the assessee after filing of the 'Return of income', as such a claim could only be entertained by him on the basis of a revised 'Return of income' filed by an assessee. 37. That on appeal the Ld. CIT(A) referring to the observations of the A.…

Smt.Sajida Begum, Mysore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Mysore

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

ITA 1230/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (DR)

Section 144Section 54FSection 80U

…laimed relief for deduction u/s. 54F and u/s. 80U for the first time. He also pointed out that it is also stated by him in same Para of his order that as per the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in 284 ITR 323, no deduction can be claimed by the assessee without filing revised return of income. He submitted that this is by now a settled position of law that this judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) impinges upon the powers of the AO and not upon the powers of CIT (A) and Tribunal and therefore, the…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Amber Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5176/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80B(10)(f)Section 80FSection 80I

…V/s. Metalman Auto P Ltd As held in this case that, if there is omission to claim the exemption in the return, the assessing officer can not debar the assesses from claiming the deduction. The judgement of the honorable Supreme Court in Goetze (India) (2006) 284 ITR 323 5.C. was not applicable to such exemption. iv. 332 ITR-306 P&H V/s. Ramco International 111 ITR 1 SC, 12 As held in his case, claim u/s. 80IB was not allowed on the ground that assessee had not filed revised return, ITAT allowed deduction on the ground that assessee was not making any fresh claim and duly furnished documents and- Form 10CCB durin…

Asiatic Gases Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 609/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Asiatic Gases Ltd., Dcit, Circle-4(1), बनाम Aayakar Bhawan,8Th 8, B.B. D. Bag (East), / Kolkata-700 001 Floor, Kolkata V/S. [Pan No.Aacca 4768 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-03-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata Dated 25.02.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 09.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Cit(A) Should Have Deleted The Addition Of Bad Debts R.47767/- On The Basis Of Details Submitted Along With Written Submission As Marked Annexure ‘A’. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao For Addition Of Bad Debts Rs.477677/- Without Asking Any Details In Course Of Hearing By The Ao. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao For Disallowing The Expenses Of Rs.285209/- As Claimed Against The Short Term Capital Gain. 4. The Ld. Cit(A) Show Have Not Given The Direction To The Ao To Assess The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.1010723/- & Long Term Capital Loss Rs.9492855/- As Per Revised Income Statement Submitted Before Ao Along With Letter Dt. 29.01.13 & Also Before The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Along With Written Submission As Marked Annexure ‘B’.

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2010-11 Asiatic Gases Ltd., DCIT, Circle-4(1), बनाम Aayakar Bhawan,8th 8, B.B. D. Bag (East), / Kolkata-700 001 Floor, Kolkata V/s. [PAN No.AACCA 4768 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-03-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 03-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आद…