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

DCIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Domex Technical Information P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5522/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Purushottam Kumar, DR
Section 10Section 154Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT-6(2)(2) M/s Domex Technical Room No. 563, Information Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Kanchan Villa, 3rd floor, Road, Churchgate, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400028. PAN No. AAACD5680Q Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Purushottam Kumar, DR Assessee by : Mr. Nitesh Joshi, AR Date of Hearing : 14/09/2017 Date of pronouncement : 29/11/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant asse…

Sajjan India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee and revenue for AY 2011-12

ITA 5550/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5550/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Sajjan India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) C/O Shankarlal Jain & Aayakar Bhawan Associates , 12, Engineer M K Road V. Building, 265, Princess Queens Road Street, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacs6498M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…learned CIT(A) as the assessee did not filed revised return of income . The revised ground of appeal raised by the assessee to that effect was rejected by the learned CIT(A) relying on Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze India Limited v. CIT 284 ITR 323(SC). The learned CIT(A) ordered deletion of mutual funds, quoted and unquoted investments and investment in subsidiary companies for the purposes of computing average investment for computing disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s. 14A , as the same were subject to tax u/s 45 on capital gains. The learned CIT(A) ordered that investment in partnership…

M/S.Hll Lifecare Ltd(Previously Known As Hindustan Latex Ltd), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 32/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Govind ShastriFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

…he authorities below submitted that assessee had made a claim during the course of assessment proceedings though it was not in the return of income. As per the learned AR, by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323) the claim ought to have been considered by the learned CIT(A). Contention of the learned AR was that if an opportunity was given, assessee would be able to satisfy the learned A.O. on its eligibility for such claim. Per contra, the learned DR submitted that the assessee having not preferred its claim through a revised return, it could not press…

M/S.Hll Lifecare Ltd(Previously Known As Hindustan Latex Ltd), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 31/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Govind ShastriFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

…he authorities below submitted that assessee had made a claim during the course of assessment proceedings though it was not in the return of income. As per the learned AR, by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323) the claim ought to have been considered by the learned CIT(A). Contention of the learned AR was that if an opportunity was given, assessee would be able to satisfy the learned A.O. on its eligibility for such claim. Per contra, the learned DR submitted that the assessee having not preferred its claim through a revised return, it could not press…

M/S.Hll Lifecare Ltd(Previously Known As Hindustan Latex Ltd), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 30/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Govind ShastriFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

…he authorities below submitted that assessee had made a claim during the course of assessment proceedings though it was not in the return of income. As per the learned AR, by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323) the claim ought to have been considered by the learned CIT(A). Contention of the learned AR was that if an opportunity was given, assessee would be able to satisfy the learned A.O. on its eligibility for such claim. Per contra, the learned DR submitted that the assessee having not preferred its claim through a revised return, it could not press…

ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2783/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathswamy-CIT
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ IN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संदीप गोसांई ,"याियक सद"य Befre S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././ITA N. 2783/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण वष" आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" ACIT-14(2)(1) M/s. Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete 432, aayakar Bhavan, 4th Flr Pvt.Ltd. M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Equinox Business Park, Twer-3 Vs. East Wing, 4th Flr,off BKC…

ITO, WD-35(3), Kolkata vs. Sri Laxmipat Surana, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross-objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 142/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 I.T.O. Ward 35(3), Kolkata.............................................................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 Sri Laxmipat Surana………………………………………………..........................Respondent 12, Bonfield Lane, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700001 [Pan : Akqps7037P] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 142/Kol/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Laxmipat Surana………………………………………………......................Cross-Objector 12, Bonfield Lane, 1St Floor, Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Akqps7037P] I.T.O. Ward 35(3), Kolkata.............................................................................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 Appearances By: Shri D.Z. Chowngthu, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 08, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10 , 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 10, Kolkata Dated 09.11.2015 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2016. 2 I.T.A. No. 142 & C.O. No. 19/Kol/2016 Sri Laxmipat Surana

Section 143(3)Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘A’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A. No. 142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 I.T.O. Ward 35(3), Kolkata.............................................................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 Sri Laxmipat Surana………………………………………………..........................Respondent 12, Bonfield Lane, 1st Floor, Kolkata – 700001 [PAN : AKQPS7037P] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2016 (Arising out of ITA No. 142/Kol/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Laxmipat Surana……………………………………………

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Dilip Ranjrekar, Bangalore

ITA 858/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 10(12)Section 143(3)Section 54

…the Act. The AO was of the view that since the claim for exemption u/s 10(12) of the Act was not made by the assessee in the return of income, the assessee’s claim cannot be considered in assessment proceedings in view of the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd., (284 ITR 323)(SC). 6.3.2 A perusal of the provision of section 10(12) of the Act and the definition of ‘Accumulated Balance’ in Part A of 4th Schedule clearly indicates that the exemption u/s 10(12) of the Act is available only to a person who being an employee withdraws the accumulated fund from the PF account as on the date of retirement or termination of e…

Aradhya Steel Wires Pvt Ltd., Davangere vs. DCIT, Davangere

ITA 1200/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 10(12)Section 143(3)Section 54

…the Act. The AO was of the view that since the claim for exemption u/s 10(12) of the Act was not made by the assessee in the return of income, the assessee’s claim cannot be considered in assessment proceedings in view of the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd., (284 ITR 323)(SC). 6.3.2 A perusal of the provision of section 10(12) of the Act and the definition of ‘Accumulated Balance’ in Part A of 4th Schedule clearly indicates that the exemption u/s 10(12) of the Act is available only to a person who being an employee withdraws the accumulated fund from the PF account as on the date of retirement or termination of e…

Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5779/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Shri Joginder Singha.Y. 2011-12 Agriculture Insurance Co. Dcit, Circle 1(1) Of India Ltd. Vs. New Delhi 13Th Floor Ambadeep Building 14 Kg Marg New Delhi 110 001 Pan: Aaeca2874P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akash Singhal, C.A. Respondent By Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing 07Th November, 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 09Th November, 2017

Section 14ASection 28Section 44

…re him for non applicability of provisions of Section 14A read with rule 8D to the appellant, erred in continuing disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of suo motto offered in the Return of Income following the Supreme Court decision in case of Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR 323. l(c) The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance to the extent of Rs.41,38,913/- while adjudicating the ground of appeal No. 2 wherein the relief sought by the appellant was without prejudice to ground of appeal No.1 raised in regard to additional disallowance of Rs.2,50,038/- u/s 14A made by the Ld. A.O. The appellant craves leave to add…

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 708/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ding Investment Pvt. Ltd Vs.ITO, Ward-9(2), Kolkata ITA No.994(Kol) of 2009 A.Y 205-06 order dated 15.02.2012 “B” Bench, Kolkata b) CIT-II Vs. Jonsan Park Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 56 taxman.com 286 (Delhi) c) Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR 182 (SC) 5. In view of the above facts, provision of law and ratio of judgements, substantial questions of law arises. 6. The appellant may please be allowed to add or alter the grounds of appeal, if any.” ITA No.707-708/Kol/2015 Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Cir-2, JAL Vs. M/s Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Page 3 5. First issue raise…

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 707/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ding Investment Pvt. Ltd Vs.ITO, Ward-9(2), Kolkata ITA No.994(Kol) of 2009 A.Y 205-06 order dated 15.02.2012 “B” Bench, Kolkata b) CIT-II Vs. Jonsan Park Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 56 taxman.com 286 (Delhi) c) Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR 182 (SC) 5. In view of the above facts, provision of law and ratio of judgements, substantial questions of law arises. 6. The appellant may please be allowed to add or alter the grounds of appeal, if any.” ITA No.707-708/Kol/2015 Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 DCIT, Cir-2, JAL Vs. M/s Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Page 3 5. First issue raise…

Sree Kailai Spinners P Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1226/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

For Appellant: Shri S. Sendamarai Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 80

…e claim of the assessee on the ground that it was not raised in the revised return of income. 3 I.T.A. No.1226/Mds/17 3. The Ld.counsel for the assessee further submitted that on referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323, that the Assessing Officer found that the claim which was not made in the revised return cannot be allowed. According to the Ld. counsel, the receipt of `60,81,004/- was taken as income for the year under consideration, therefore, the Assessing Officer has to necessarily examine whether it is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Pavel Garg, New Delhi

The appeal of the department stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations

ITA 5381/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmod, Sr. DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…e assessee submitted before the AO that since the principal was not receivable there was no question of interest accruing on the same. However, the AO by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) held that it was beyond the purview of his powers to allow such a claim as no revised return had been filed. 5.9 The Ld. CIT (A), while allowing the claim and directing the AO to delete the additions totalling to Rs. 7,16,60,712/-,referred to the aforesaid in judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze 14 ACIT vs. Pavel Ga…

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. B Arunumar Capital & Credit Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4147/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 14A

…pital & Credit Services Pvt. Ltd. and hence there was no requirement to make any disallowance towards indirect interest expenditure. The Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (284 ITR 323), took the view that the revised claim can be admitted only if it is made by way of filing revised return of income. Accordingly he disallowed the sum of ` 55.56 lakhs, as originally worked out by the assessee, u/s. 14A of the Act. The learned CIT(A) agreed with the contentions of the assessee and restricted the addition to ` 4,07,375/-. Aggrieve…

M/S Sharavathy Conductors vs. The Chief Commissioner of

WP/28376/2017HC Karnataka24 Oct 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari W.P.No.28376/2017 (T-It) Between

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(5)Section 80HSection 80I

…ant case, the supplement claim of refund has arouse on account of claim of deduction u/s 80HHC which was claimed afresh in the revised return of income. ii. As per the decision of the Ho’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz Indian Limited Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323(SC)(2006)), a deduction not claimed in the Original Return of Income can be claimed only by way of Revised Return of Income. In the instant case, the applicant claimed deduction u/s 80HHC in revised return of income which was filed Date of order 24.10.2017 W.P.No.28376/2017 M/s. Sharavathy Conductors Private Limited vs. The Chief C…

M/S. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6310/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the time of filing of revised return. A.O. disallowed the additional claim made by the assessee on the ground that same should have been made by way of revised return and applying the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) disallowed the assessee’s claim. 2 Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT 3. Ld. CIT (A) too following the same judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the action of the A.O. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Accordingly, we are proceeding to decide the matter on merits after hearing the Ld. DR.…

ACIT, Circle-2, Asansol vs. M/S. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Burdwan

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2130/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…admit the additional grounds. 13. The additional grounds makes claim for reduction of income. The claim of the assessee is not ·made in the returns of income. These claims are now raised in appeal. In this context the case Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. C.I.T. (SC) 284 ITR 323 applies. As per the decision any changes in return of income can be made only by way of a revised return of income and not in any other manner. 14. In this case the claims are made at appeal stage. If the same is considered, the appellant is making use of a platform not available to majority of assessees in the country. Only those returns of inco…

Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Asansol

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2119/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…admit the additional grounds. 13. The additional grounds makes claim for reduction of income. The claim of the assessee is not ·made in the returns of income. These claims are now raised in appeal. In this context the case Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. C.I.T. (SC) 284 ITR 323 applies. As per the decision any changes in return of income can be made only by way of a revised return of income and not in any other manner. 14. In this case the claims are made at appeal stage. If the same is considered, the appellant is making use of a platform not available to majority of assessees in the country. Only those returns of inco…

Trio Elevators Company (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 952/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri S. S. Godara. Trio Elevators Company (India) Ltd., 404, Shivam Complex, Bhuyangdev Cross Road, Sola Road, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 4(1)(2), Ahmedabad Respondent Pan: Aacct4923E

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…sentative fails to rebut the fact that assessee’s audited balance sheet duly reveals the relevant figure in schedule 3. We therefore accept the instant substantive ground in principle by quoting hon’ble apex court’s judgment in Goetze (India) Ltd. case (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) that this tribunal as well as all appellate authorities in the Act do have jurisdiction to entertain such a plea without even filing of a revised return. We direct the Assessing Officer to finalize necessary factual verification. It also emerges that the above co-ordinate bench decision has already ITA No. 952/Ahd/15 [Trio Elevators Co. (In…