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 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

Kanchan Singhvi, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2553/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2553/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Kanchan Singhvi, The Income Tax Officer, No. 156, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai 600 079. Chennai. [Pan: Abhps2435F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Nithya Sankaran, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sagadevan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, Dated 20.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15.The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gain Of ₹.18,69,390/-

For Appellant: Ms. Nithya Sankaran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

…he Act and thus, added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the inadvertent omission to fill a column in the return of income would not make the long term capital gain taxable which is otherwise exempt under section 10(38) of the Act .…

Kesoram Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 505/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी ऐ. ट". वक","यायीक सद"यएवंडॉ.अजु"नलालसैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1037/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited…

Kesoram Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1188/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी ऐ. ट". वक","यायीक सद"यएवंडॉ.अजु"नलालसैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1037/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited…

Kesoram Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl C.I.T RG - 5, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 773/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी ऐ. ट". वक","यायीक सद"यएवंडॉ.अजु"नलालसैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1037/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited…

D.C.I.T Cir - 5, Kolkata vs. M/S Kesoram Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1995/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी ऐ. ट". वक","यायीक सद"यएवंडॉ.अजु"नलालसैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1037/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited…

ACIT, Circle-5, Kolkata vs. M/S Kesoram Industries. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1722/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी ऐ. ट". वक","यायीक सद"यएवंडॉ.अजु"नलालसैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1037/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited…

Kesoram Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Add.CIT, Range-5, Kolkata

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1037/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी ऐ. ट". वक","यायीक सद"यएवंडॉ.अजु"नलालसैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 773/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1037/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kesoram Industries Limited (PAN: Vs. Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. AABCK 2417 P) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT Range - 5, Kol. Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited…

Gouranga Modak, Kolkata vs. JCIT, RG-49, Kolkata

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

ITA 674/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Ao In Support Of The Claim. The Ao Considering The Submissions Along With Details Filed Determined The Total Income At Rs. 2,04,65,720/- By Making The Following Additions Vide An Order Dt. 01-03-2013 Passed U/Sec 143(3) Of The Act:

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

…further contended that there was no fresh claim for any other deduction and therefore, pleaded to entertain the fresh claim and in support of his claim, he placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (I) Ltd, reported in 282 ITR 323(SC). 14. The CIT-A considering the submissions of assessee gave relief only to the extent expenditure incurred towards site development & preliminary expenses of Rs.3,87,560/- and confirmed the additions of Rs.9,46,440/- and Rs.14,01,654/- on other two heads ‘steel shuttering materials 1/3 w/o and ‘wood shuttering materials 1/3 w/o. 15. The AR…

Smt.Suman Mohatta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-12(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 334/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Ravish Sood (Jm) I.T.A. No. 334/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Smt. Suman Mohatta Ito 12(3)(3) Flat No. 13, 3Rd Floor Vs. Mumbai Lotus Court, J. Tara Road Churchgate, Mumbai-20. Pan : Aadpm0305P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…i.e. on or before 31-03-2013. Therefore, the assesse's revised return could not be considered, for this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'b/e Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Goetz India vs. C/T. In the case of Goetz India vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer cannot allow the claim of the assessee unless the assessee files a revised return u/s. 139(5) of the Income Tax Act. From the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that anything not come through the return or a revised return as per law could not be allowed. Therefore, the income fro…

M/S Sanjay Shankarrao Jadhao, Amravati vs. Jioint C.I.T. Amravati Range, Amravati

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 66/NAG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar
Section 234ASection 54B

…4B of the Act for purchase of agricultural land on the ground that the same was not based on the original return of income but raised in the revised return of income upon placing relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetz India Ltd. v/s CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC). 10. Before us, the learned Counsel for assessee has made submissions which are summarized as under:– “A) The assessee submitted revised return claiming exemption under section 54B in respect to investment in agricultural land. A.O. held that original return is not in time and therefore, no valid revised return can be submitted. The exemp…

DCIT, Cir-1, Siliguri vs. M/S Gangadhar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 401/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 24Section 250(4)Section 36(1)(iii)

…rest u/s. 24(b) as borrowed fund were not utilized for construction purpose. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and fact in deleting it and allowing u/s. 36(1)(iii) which was not claimed in return. Reliance is placed on the judgment – Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. ICT 204 CTR 182(SC). 5. That the appellant carves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal, if any.” 3. All the issues are interconnected therefore being taken up together for purpose of adjudication. The issue raised by the Revenue is whether the ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of interest expenses. 4. Briefly…

Dciat 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sundaram Multipap Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5327/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 5327/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2012-13) DCIT-14(3)(2) M/s. Sundaram Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Multipap Limited R.No. 455 5/6, Papa Industrial M.K. Road Estate, Suren Road Mumbai-400 020. Andheri East Mumbai-400 093. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 272/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) M/s. Sundaram DCIT-14(3)(2) Multipap Limited Vs. Aayakar Bhavan 5/6, Papa Industrial R.No. 455 Estate, Suren Road M.K. Road Andheri East Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 093. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN : AADCS7829K…

Jiten Shantilal Gogri, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kalyan

In the result, we delete the disallowance made by the Assessing

ITA 7305/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: (A.Y : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A

…unjustly rejected by the CIT(A) primarily on the ground that it was a fresh claim not made through the return of income and, therefore, it could not be entertained in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC). 5. Before us, the learned representative pointed out that the CIT(A) ought to have accepted the said claim inasmuch as the necessary material was already on record and that such a fresh claim was permissible to be admitted following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Sharehold…

Ketan Lalitbhai Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1216/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1216/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 Shri Ketan Lalitbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bawaliya Faliya At&Post Ward 2(3)(2) Surat Abhava Taluka Choryashi District Surat 395007 Pan: Aorpp 4348B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 50CSection 50C(2)(a)Section 54B

…f deduction under section 54B of the Act. However, the AO did not accept the revised claim as revised return was filed late, hence, it was not found acceptable in the light of decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). However, in appeal the CIT (A) has accepted the claim of long- term capital gain and deduction under section 54B as claimed in revised return and directed the AO to consider sale consideration at Rs. 35,50,950 as per stamp duty valuation, cost of acquisition at Rs. 3,74,650 and allow indexation with effect from 11.04.2005 Shri Ketan La…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1604/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. ‘Ksfc Bhavan’, No.1/1, Thimmaiah Road, Near Cantonment Railway Station, Bengaluru. … Respondent Pan:Aaack 9480 H Appellant By : Shri A.C.Raju, Ca. Respondent By : Shri B.R.Ramesh, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru, [Cit(A)], Dated 28/06/2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Respondent-Assessee Is An Undertaking Of Government Of Karnataka Set Up For The Purpose Of Providing Finance To Industries In The State Of Karnataka. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30/09/2009. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By Order Dated 28/11/2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] At Loss Of Rs.3,58,95,3461/. While Doing So, The Ao Disallowed A Sum Of Rs.34,17,548/- Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, Legal & Professional Charges In Page 2 Of 8 Connection With Issue Of Bonds Of Rs.41,79,935/-, Also Not Allowed The Claim For Deduction Of Rs.548.64 Lakhs Being The Liability Arising On Account Rejection By Government Of Karnataka On The Ground That The Claim Was Not Made In The Original Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri A.C.Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…incurred loss of Rs.548.64 lakhs on account of rejection of claim on account of subsidies. This claim was not made in the return of income. Hence, the AO, drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323)(SC) disallowed the claim on the ground that no claim was made in the return of income. However, the ld.CIT(A), placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) allowed the claim. 9. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The claim made by the assessee had be…

Duncans Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1277/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)

…1 Duncans Industries Ltd., AY 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/and "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1277/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Duncans Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (PAN: AAACD9302P) Circle-4(1), Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 24.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement 11.04.2018 For the Appellant Shri Subhas Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR ORDER…

Apa Engineering Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in respect of

ITA 1070/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mrs.C.Sumithra, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.N.Madhavan,ACIT,D.R
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 46A

…Act has not been considered on merits, though the Form No.56F has been admitted by the Ld.CIT(A) in the form of additional evidence, we exercise our powers in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 and restore the issue of claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The ld. Assessing Officer shall consider the alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act by treating the Form No.56F as having been filed along with the return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. 6. In the result, grounds raise…

Apa Engineering Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in respect of

ITA 1069/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mrs.C.Sumithra, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.N.Madhavan,ACIT,D.R
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 46A

…Act has not been considered on merits, though the Form No.56F has been admitted by the Ld.CIT(A) in the form of additional evidence, we exercise our powers in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 and restore the issue of claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The ld. Assessing Officer shall consider the alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act by treating the Form No.56F as having been filed along with the return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. 6. In the result, grounds raise…

Apa Engineering Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in respect of

ITA 1068/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mrs.C.Sumithra, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.N.Madhavan,ACIT,D.R
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 46A

…Act has not been considered on merits, though the Form No.56F has been admitted by the Ld.CIT(A) in the form of additional evidence, we exercise our powers in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 and restore the issue of claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The ld. Assessing Officer shall consider the alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act by treating the Form No.56F as having been filed along with the return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. 6. In the result, grounds raise…

Apa Engineering Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in respect of

ITA 1067/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mrs.C.Sumithra, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.N.Madhavan,ACIT,D.R
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 46A

…Act has not been considered on merits, though the Form No.56F has been admitted by the Ld.CIT(A) in the form of additional evidence, we exercise our powers in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 and restore the issue of claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The ld. Assessing Officer shall consider the alternate claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act by treating the Form No.56F as having been filed along with the return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. 6. In the result, grounds raise…