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

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

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

ITA 1066/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

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…

The Deal India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2083/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2082 & 2083/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2006-2007 & 2010-2011. The Deal India Pvt. Ltd, The Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Boardex India Pvt. Ltd) Vs. Corporate Ward 1(1) B Block Ground Floor, Chennai 600 034. Sabari Sunny Side, 8/17, Shafee Mohammed Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aaccb 1457B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. J. Satish, C.A. & Shri. MFor Respondent: Mrs. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10B

…als) assessee had made an alternative claim for allowing deduction u/s.10A of the Act. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 rejected this claim for a reason that assessee had not preferred such claim before the ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. Authorised Representative relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 submitted that Appellate authority ought have considered the alternative claim and adjudicated such claim. According to…

The Deal India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2082/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2082 & 2083/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2006-2007 & 2010-2011. The Deal India Pvt. Ltd, The Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Boardex India Pvt. Ltd) Vs. Corporate Ward 1(1) B Block Ground Floor, Chennai 600 034. Sabari Sunny Side, 8/17, Shafee Mohammed Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aaccb 1457B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. J. Satish, C.A. & Shri. MFor Respondent: Mrs. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10B

…als) assessee had made an alternative claim for allowing deduction u/s.10A of the Act. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 rejected this claim for a reason that assessee had not preferred such claim before the ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. Authorised Representative relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 submitted that Appellate authority ought have considered the alternative claim and adjudicated such claim. According to…

Shri Dinesh Nagpal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (T& J), Jaipur

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

ITA 1017/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Him Even Though He Had All The Powers To Entertain Such Claim.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal & Shri Anurag Goyal (CAs)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 139(5)Section 54F

…he assessee has failed to file the revised return of income as per the provisions of section 139(5) and, therefore, the AO relied upon 3 Shri Dinesh Nagpal, Jaipur. the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and held that the fresh claim cannot be allowed to the assessee without a valid revised return. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) but could not succeed. 3. Before us, the learned A/R of the assessee submitted that the claim of deduction under section 54F is purely legal in nature and also in respect of the…

Bharat Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 236/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 236/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Bharat Enterprises Acit – 24(1), बनाम/ B-219, Garze Plaza S Road, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefb 2174 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhatt ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

…appropriate to deny a legally valid claim of the assessee merely because the copy of the suits documents could not be produced by it before the AO. The assessee also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 in this regard besides other decisions. The assessee has further claimed that the impugned amount of Rs.19,87,500/- is only a Journal entry and that there was no transaction with Shri Becharlal Patel during the course of the previous year under consideration. It was claimed that an accounting entry cannot result in either accrued or generation of…

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

ITA 380/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P C ParwalFor Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…he Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing claim of the assessee despite the fact that the assessee did not make any such claim in ROI as per Apex Rajasthan State Industries Development & Investment Corp. Ltd. court's decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee should have filed revised ROI and made claim. 2. Firstly, we take up the assessee’s appeal. The Ground no. 1 of assessee’s appeal relates to disallowance of Rs. 5 crores made by the AO on account of expenditure incurred in construction of Rajasthan House in Mumbai. 2.1 Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee has…

A.C.I.T Cir - 46, Kolkata vs. The Bantra Co - Operative Bank Ltd, Howrah

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

ITA 2153/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1936 /Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Bantra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata. [Pan: Aabct 2605 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2153 /Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata. -Vs- The Bantra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 2605 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 28

…ccount” in the earlier year. It is seen that although the claim for allowing this amount has been made for the first time in appeal, the Appellant has given justification for making the claim in Appeal. In view of the decisions in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 and NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that the Appellate authority can consider the claim not made in Assessment proceedings, and raised only in Appeal can be considered. Therefore, the claim which has been made subsequent to the Assessment proceedings, on the grounds that the Reserve and subsequently credited in the prof…

The Bantra Co - Operative Bank Ltd, Howrah vs. I.T.O WD - 46(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1936/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1936 /Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Bantra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata. [Pan: Aabct 2605 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2153 /Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata. -Vs- The Bantra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 2605 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 28

…ccount” in the earlier year. It is seen that although the claim for allowing this amount has been made for the first time in appeal, the Appellant has given justification for making the claim in Appeal. In view of the decisions in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 and NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that the Appellate authority can consider the claim not made in Assessment proceedings, and raised only in Appeal can be considered. Therefore, the claim which has been made subsequent to the Assessment proceedings, on the grounds that the Reserve and subsequently credited in the prof…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6257/MUM/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1999-00 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit-2(2) Taxation Department L&T Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. House, N.M. Ballard Estate, Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400001 Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 1999-00 Dcit-2(2) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Room No. 577, 5Th Floor, Taxation Department Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. L&T House, N.M. Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacl0140P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J.D. Mistry & Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anadi Varma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Mr. Anadi Varma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145A

…ginal return or the revised return of income and the claim was made in the course of assessment proceedings. In the process, the AO made a disallowance of Rs.7,22,722/-. 6.2 In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) stating that with regard to deduction claimed after filing of the return, the AO has no power to entertain the claim made otherwise then by way of revised return. On the basis of the above reasons, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of Rs.7,22,722/- made by the AO. 6.3 Before us, the Ld. counsels of the assessee rely on the decision in P…

Ansh Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2492/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…t order. Considering the fact that the alternate claim is raised for the first time without filing the return of income, AO denied the alternate claim of the assessee relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT 157 Taxmann 1 relied on by the assessee. Eventually, the AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.39,48,610/- vide his order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act, dated 27-03-2015. Contents of Para No.5.8 of the AO’s order are relevant and the same are extracted below : “5.8 In view of the above discussion the contention of the assessee hereby rejected and…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Celoxis Technologies Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2759/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Dr. Vivek AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Phadke
Section 10Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 80A

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “एक सद"य "यायपीठ एक सद"य एक सद"य” पुणे एक सद"य पुणे पुणे म"म"म"म" पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE सु"ी सु"ी सुषमा सु"ी सु"ी सुषमा सुषमा चावला सुषमा चावला चावला, "याियक चावला "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं "ी एवं "ी "ी डी "ी डी डी. क"णाकरा डी क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव राव, लेखा राव लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आय आयकर आय आय कर कर अपील कर अपील अपील संसं…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Column Software Technologies Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2715/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Dr. Vivek AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Phadke
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 80A

…he Ld. CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in allowing alternate claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 10A of the Act ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs CIT reported in 157 Taxmann 1, wherein it has been held that an assessee can amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction only by filing a revised return. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in allowing alternate claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 10A of the Act ignoring decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Co…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4220/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

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

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4219/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4048/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4047/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

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

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4045/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

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

DCIT 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sharda Worldwide Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3804/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri Kunal Beswal/Anuj KishnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja -DR
Section 254(1)

…ssee had made the nuclear after filing its return of income, that claim was not made by filing a valid revised return, that such a claim could not be considered in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, delivered in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (284 ITR 323), that the registration of products was a long-term process which took 1-4 years,that there were various steps involved in process which took longtime efforts and money to get the product registered. The AO gave details of various steps taken by the assessee for registration and held that it was not a case of simply registering the product, that…

ITO, Ward-35(3), Kolkata vs. Shri Laxmipat Surana, Kolkata

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

ITA 2398/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2398/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 I.T.O, Ward-35(3), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Laxmipat Surana [Pan: Akbps 7037 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 14/Kol/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 2398/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2012-13 I.T.O, Ward-35(3), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Laxmipat Surana [Pan: Akbps 7037 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 2398/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 I.T.O, Ward-35(3), Kolkata -vs- Shri Laxmipat Surana [PAN: AKBPS 7037 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 14/Kol/2017 (Arising out of I.T.A No. 2398/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2012-13 I.T.O, Ward-35(3), Kolkata -vs- Shri Laxmipat Surana [PAN: AKBPS 7037 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT For the Respondent : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Date of Hearing : 19.02.2018 Date of Pron…

Kokan Mercantile Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 17(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 979/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm A.C.I.T -17(1) Kokan Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 1St Floor. R. No. 113 बिधम/ Harbour Crest, Piramal Chambers Mazgaon, Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400 010 Mumbai स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaak2527P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Kokan Mercantile Co-Operativebank Ltd. Jt.C.I.T. 17(1) I.T. Harbour Crest, Offices, Piramal बिधम/ Mazgaon, Chambers (1St Floor) Vs. Mumbai 400 010 Parel, Mumbai-400 012 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaak2527P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.RFor Respondent: Shri M.Subramanian A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…ving that the aforesaid claim of the assessee was beyond the said stipulated time period, declined to admit the same. The A.O while concluding as hereinabove relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). Alternatively, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had in the immediately preceding year, viz. A.Y. 2008-09 debited a sum of Rs. 2,02,50,500/- as premium on investment amortized, which however was disallowed by his predecessor and the matter as on date was pending before the CIT(A). The A.O held a conviction that as the investments…