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

ITO, Ward (E), Chandigarh vs. Sant Baba Sunder Singh, Barnala

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself

ITA 1183/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajit Saldi
Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 68

…imed while arriving at the figure of annual receipt of the institute. iii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Goezte India Ltd Vs CIT( 284 ITR 323 SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that any new claim or any change in the original return of income can only be made by filing a revised return and not by making a claim during the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation/simple letter. iv. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & fa…

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. Sri Kaliswari Fireworks (P) Ltd, Sivakasi

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

ITA 1900/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.V.Srikrishnan, CA
Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…the facts required for making the alternate claim and verification thereof was available before the AO. This being so and this fact being undisputed, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323, the issue of the claim of deduction u/s.35(1)(iv) r.w.s.35(2) is restored to the file of the AO for adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its claim. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on March 01, 2018, at Chenn…

Emami Indrastructure Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 880/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri R.N. Bajoria, Sr. Counsel, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Mishra, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…in its return of income but has claimed it by way of letter 10.12.2012 during the assessment proceeding. I am of the view that the claim of benefit of 47(iv) is a new claim. Hence in view of Hon'ble Supreme decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), I am of the view that the AO has correctly not allowed the deduction under section 47 of the Act. 8 The AR has relied on number of decisions in supper of this contention, but the factual position of those cases differs from the case of the appellant because in the case of the appellant an altogether new deduction has been claimed by way le…

Foseco International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5706/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 115A(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 5706/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Foseco International Ltd. DCIT (Int. Taxation) C/o. Sharp and Tannnan Vs. Circle 2(3)(1) Ravindra Annexe, 194 Air India Building Churchgate Reclamation Nariman Point Dinshaw Vachha Road Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AABCF6399K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sanjiv M. Shah Department by Shri Rajat Mittal Date of Hearing 28.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2018 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appe…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai

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

ITA 1469/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

…me filed under section 139(1) or 139(5) of the Act but has claimed such TDS in the return of income filed in response to notice issued under section 153A of the Act. While doing so, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd, 284 ITR 323. Being aggrieved of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer rejecting the applications 3 M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. under section 154 of the Act, the assessee filed appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the orders passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. The learned Authorised Representative…

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

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

ITA 2301/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2301/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 250Section 80A(5)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ एक-सदस्य मामऱा पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.2301/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 1(3), Pune …. Vs. Enterprise DB Software India Pvt. Ltd., Unit 3, Ground Floor, Godrej Castlemaine, Next to Ruby Hall, Sasoon Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411001 PAN: AABCE5660N अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Achal Sharma प्…

Shanti Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd., Pantnagar vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Haldwani

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

ITA 6379/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2013-14 Shanti Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Acit, Circle-1, Ltd., Haldwani. Plot No.27&28, Sector- 7, Vs. Sidcul, Pantnagar.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. R. Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…of brought forward loss of earlier years on the ground that the same was not claimed at the time of filing of the return. While doing so, the Assessing Officer relied on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze 2 (India) Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 323, according to which, income cannot be assessed below the returned income. It may be pertinent to mention here that the assessee in its return of income filed on 30.09.2013 has declared income at Rs.33,95,610/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A for Rs.9,82,763/-. 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by obser…

Ashok Keshavlal Tejuja, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 18(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3429/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3429/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ashok Keshavlal Tejuja बिाम/ Acit, Cir 18(1), 11T H Floor, Neelkanth Now Cir 21(1), Apertments, Worli Hill Road, Piramal Chambers, V. Worli, Mumbai-400018 1St Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpt1714D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavik. B. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Tiwari,DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54F

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “D” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3429/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ashok Keshavlal Tejuja बिाम/ ACIT, CIR 18(1), 11t h Floor, Neelkanth Now CIR 21(1), Apertments, Worli Hill Road, Piramal Chambers, v. Worli, Mumbai-400018 1st Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AABPT1714D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Bhavik. B. Shah Revenue by : Shri. Ram Tiwari,DR सुनवाई की…

Dic India Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 552/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 552/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 D.I.C.India Ltd. -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-10 (1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcc 0703C] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, C.A.(Ar) For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit, (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2018

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, C.A.(AR)For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT, (DR)
Section 144CSection 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

…s the objection is dismissed.” 23. Aggrieved by the order of DRP, the Assessee has raised Gr.No.7 before the Tribunal. 24. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it was held that any claim made by the assessee which is not supported by a revised return filed u/s 139(5) of the Act could not be entertained by the AO, is applicable only to the power of the AO to entertain a new claim and is not applicable to the appellate authority under the Act. The DRP as a first appellate authority has the po…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Ramakant Rajaram Bodke, Pune

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 704/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.704/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 54BSection 54F

…aim can be made only by way of filing return of income or revised return of income. Thus, benefit of deduction u/s.54F cannot be allowed. The ld. DR further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported as 284 ITR 323 has held that Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim of deduction otherwise than by filing a revised 5 A.Y. 2010-11 return of income. A fresh claim of the assessee can only be entertained by the Tribunal in exercise of power u/s. 254 of the Act. 4.2 In respect of interest on house loan Rs. 27,646/-, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee…

K.Shanthi, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

ITA 433/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT
Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 54B

…EC of the Act was not preferred by the assessee before the lower authorities. According to her, it was a fresh claim and could not be allowed at this stage. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 17. orders of the authorities below. There are four questions to be ITA No. 433/Mds/2017. :- 16 -: answered. First is whether the land sold by the assessee at Seerapalayam Village was agricultural in nature or not. Second is whether the pieces of land purchased by the assessee at Kodangi…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4736/MUM/2010[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…n of the exchange gain from the total income was claimed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings without filing the revised return as was required keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT as reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). d) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the claim of the assessee for excluding such income from the total income was inconsistent with the method of accounting followed by the assessee itself. ITA No. 4736 & 4598/M/2010- State Bank of India 4. On the facts and in the…

ACIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4598/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…n of the exchange gain from the total income was claimed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings without filing the revised return as was required keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT as reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). d) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the claim of the assessee for excluding such income from the total income was inconsistent with the method of accounting followed by the assessee itself. ITA No. 4736 & 4598/M/2010- State Bank of India 4. On the facts and in the…

Pravin Ratilal Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3873/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am Pravin Ratilal Gandhi, The Deputy Commissioner Currimji Building, 1 St Floor, Of Income Tax, Circle 111, M.G. Road, Fort, 2(3)(1), Room No. 552, 5 Th Vs. Mumbai-400 001 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G. MANJUNATHA, AM Pravin Ratilal Gandhi, The Deputy Commissioner Currimji Building, 1 st Floor, of Income Tax, Circle 111, M.G. Road, Fort, 2(3)(1), Room No. 552, 5 th Vs. Mumbai-400 001 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent .. PAN No. AACPG5503A Assessee by : Nitesh Joshi, AR Revenue by : M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR Date of hearing: 09-01-2018 Date of pronouncement : 24-01-2018 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Larsen & Toubro Finance Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4459/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…s.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-2008 income but claimed the same during assessment proceedings before Ld. AO. The Ld. AO relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] opined that the same could be claimed only by filing the revised return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the same by following the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Balmukund Acharya [310 ITR 310] which was rendered after considering the several judicial pronouncements of higher judicial authorities. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further app…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3982/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…s.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-2008 income but claimed the same during assessment proceedings before Ld. AO. The Ld. AO relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] opined that the same could be claimed only by filing the revised return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the same by following the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Balmukund Acharya [310 ITR 310] which was rendered after considering the several judicial pronouncements of higher judicial authorities. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further app…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3981/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…s.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-2008 income but claimed the same during assessment proceedings before Ld. AO. The Ld. AO relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] opined that the same could be claimed only by filing the revised return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the same by following the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Balmukund Acharya [310 ITR 310] which was rendered after considering the several judicial pronouncements of higher judicial authorities. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further app…

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3980/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: M.M.Golvala & Akram Khan, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: S.C.Tiwari CIT (DR) & Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 88E

…s.3980-3982 &4459/Mum/2013 L & T Finance Limited Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-2008 income but claimed the same during assessment proceedings before Ld. AO. The Ld. AO relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] opined that the same could be claimed only by filing the revised return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the same by following the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Balmukund Acharya [310 ITR 310] which was rendered after considering the several judicial pronouncements of higher judicial authorities. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further app…

K Siddalingappa, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Davangere

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1955/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Anand, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 234B

…plea that the same relates to HUF. 6. The, Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of interest charged u/s.234B of the Act. 7. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Goetze India Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (284 ITR 323) relied upon by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has no application to the facts of the case. The appellant pray leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal to add/modify/delete any other ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. Regarding ground no. 1, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that as per page no. 3 of the assessment order, t…

DCIT, Cir-2, Jalpaiguri vs. M/S Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Coochbihar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 706/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: : Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 154Section 5Section 80P

…ted the AO to allow this claim of the assessee. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in his above decision for various reasons which we discuss below. We find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (I) Ltd. reported in [2006] 204 CTR 182 (SC) : 2006 284 ITR 323 (SC) has held as under: 2. The question raised in this appeal relates to whether the appellant assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. The assessment year in question was 1995-96. The return was filed on 30-11-1995, by the appellant for the assessment year in question. On 12-1-1998, the appellant sought t…