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

Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 50

…sessing Officer in accepting the revised computation in which the reduction of 25 I . T . A . N o . 3 2 5 9 / M u m / 2 0 1 7 RS.5,17,82,414 was made by the appellant was clearly not in accordance with the decision of Supreme Court in case of Goetz India Ltd. 284 ITR 323. The appellant had made three adjustments in the revised computation of income filed in course of assessment proceedings, two of them reducing the loss and one increasing the loss. The same are summarized as under:- Item Amount (Rs.) Impact on Total Incentive claimed but was already allowed (-) 34,86,253 Loss reduced in A.Y.2011-12 and there…

Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai vs. CIT -40, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 647/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 647/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Shah Rukh Khan, Vs. The Acit, 44, Mannat, B.J. Road, Central Circle-29, Mumbai Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpk3293L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Rajguru (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajguru (DR)
Section 142Section 143Section 14ASection 288

…of Rs. 51,27,445/- as deemed income from house property of the assessee in respect of the Signature Villa aforesaid. After hearing the assessee, the Ld. CIT (A) following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 rejected the contention of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A):- 1. “The learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the assessment of…

DCIT, Circle-12, Kolkata vs. M/S. India Glycols Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1628/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 80CSection 80I

…come as well as in the revised return of income. Therefore, AO disallowed the deduction claimed by assessee u/s 80IC of the Act after having reliance in the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it was observed that Assessing Officer cannot entertain the claim of the assessee otherwise than by filing a revised return of income. Hence, AO disallowed the claim of assessee for deduction of ₹8,52,27,373/- u/s. 80IC of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld.CIT(A) submitted t…

ITO 27(2)(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Lenyadri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and the cross appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3942/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…section 80P of the Act in the return of income but claimed the same only during the course of the assessment proceedings and hence the claim of the assessee is not admissible in view of the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. [284 ITR 323 (SC) (2006)], it is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom)] has held that the appellate authorities have the power to consider the claim not made in return of income. The Ho'ble Bombay High Court while deciding so, has considered the jud…

Lenyadri Sahakari Pathpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 27(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and the cross appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3371/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…section 80P of the Act in the return of income but claimed the same only during the course of the assessment proceedings and hence the claim of the assessee is not admissible in view of the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. [284 ITR 323 (SC) (2006)], it is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom)] has held that the appellate authorities have the power to consider the claim not made in return of income. The Ho'ble Bombay High Court while deciding so, has considered the jud…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly direct the AO to exclude value of such fringe benefit from the taxable value of fringe benefit. Ground No. 7 is accordingly allowed

ITA 5057/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5057/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcitcent. Circle-1(4), Room No.902, M/S. Grasim Industries Limited 9Th Floor,Old Cgo Building. M.K. Road Corporate Finance Division, Aditya Birla Church Gate,Mumbai-400 020. Centre, A-Wing, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sk Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Pan:Aaacg 4464 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Vidyadhar- Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ronak G. Doshi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017 लेखा सद"य, राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order Dtd.30.07.2015 Of The Cit(A)-13,Mumbai,The Assessee Had Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Filed The Fringe Benefit Tax(Fbt) On 29/09/2009,Showing Value Of Chargeable Fringe Benefit (Fb) At Rs.36.80 Crores.In The Return It Had Offered Various Expenses As Chargeable To Fbt.But,By Way Of A Note It Claimed That Fbt Was Payable On Such Expenditure.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S.115We(3)Of The Act,On 17.10.2011,Determining The Value Of The Chargeable Fb At Rs. 36,80,51,213/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vidyadhar- DR
Section 115W

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “जी” खंडपीठ म" Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C. N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5057/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCITCent. Circle-1(4), Room No.902, M/s. Grasim Industries Limited 9th Floor,Old CGO Building. M.K. Road Corporate Finance Division, Aditya Birla Church Gate,Mumbai-400 020. Centre, A-Wing, Vs. 2nd Floor, SK Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai-400 030 PAN:AAACG 4464 B (…

Jsw Holdings Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 714/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Sh Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Smt. Arju Garodia
Section 14A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s JSW Holdings Ltd., Vs. The DCIT 5(2), Formerly Jindal South West Mumbai Holding Ltd., Mumbai PAN No. AABCJ1531F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Hiro Rai Respondent By : Smt. Arju Garodia Date of hearing : 06.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2017 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10[hereinafter referred…

The Sholinghur Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Sholingur vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, both the appeals stand allowed

ITA 1341/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 36(1)(viia)

…e return of income. The assessees also failed to file the revised return. However, it was claimed before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceeding. The Assessing Officer by applying the judgment of Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) (284 ITR 323), rejected the claim of the assessees. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation (P.) Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 100, the Ld.counsel 3 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/17 submitted that even if the claim does not form part of original return or even revised return, still it can be considered by the Assessin…

The Ranipet Town Co-Operative Bank Limited, Vellore vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, both the appeals stand allowed

ITA 1340/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 36(1)(viia)

…e return of income. The assessees also failed to file the revised return. However, it was claimed before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceeding. The Assessing Officer by applying the judgment of Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) (284 ITR 323), rejected the claim of the assessees. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation (P.) Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 100, the Ld.counsel 3 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/17 submitted that even if the claim does not form part of original return or even revised return, still it can be considered by the Assessin…

M/S. the Mayurbhanj Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Cuttack vs. DCIT, Balasore

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

ITA 387/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Ambica Prasad Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 35ASection 36(1)(vii)

…g Officer was not justified in not accepting the same and allowing deduction for the same. Further, the CIT(A) was also not justified in not allowing the claim of the assessee as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) was not applicable on appellate authorities. Hence, he submitted that deduction should be allowed to the assessee. 24. Ld D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. 25. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials on record, we find that the assessee had claimed deduction for commission payment of Rs.20,75,326/…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1348/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 41(1)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi Before : Shri I.C. Sudhir, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos.898 & 899/Del./2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, 8th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, New Delhi. Nehru Place, New Delhi. PAN – AAACA1967D (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1348 & 1349/Del./2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 DCIT, Central Circle-6, vs. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 8th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Pradeep Dinod…

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 898/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 41(1)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi Before : Shri I.C. Sudhir, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos.898 & 899/Del./2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, 8th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, New Delhi. Nehru Place, New Delhi. PAN – AAACA1967D (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1348 & 1349/Del./2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 DCIT, Central Circle-6, vs. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 8th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Pradeep Dinod…

Eastern Coalfilelds Ltd vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Asansol

In the result, ITA No. 1636/Kol/2014 (Revenue’s appeal) is dismissed, ITA No

ITA 1654/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 35E

…and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of I.Tax (Appeals), ought to have adjudicated the Ground of Appeal before him in favour of the appellant, as decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Goetze (India) vs. C.I.T. (SC) 284 ITR 323 relied on by him, does not bar the appellate authority to consider the issue even if no revised return have been filed. 3. For that, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeal) ought to have reduced the assessed income by Rs. 2,88,74,000/- as Ld. A.O., while computing the income in the assessment order, has wrongly taken…

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

In the result, ITA No. 1636/Kol/2014 (Revenue’s appeal) is dismissed, ITA No

ITA 1637/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 35E

…and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of I.Tax (Appeals), ought to have adjudicated the Ground of Appeal before him in favour of the appellant, as decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Goetze (India) vs. C.I.T. (SC) 284 ITR 323 relied on by him, does not bar the appellate authority to consider the issue even if no revised return have been filed. 3. For that, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeal) ought to have reduced the assessed income by Rs. 2,88,74,000/- as Ld. A.O., while computing the income in the assessment order, has wrongly taken…

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

In the result, ITA No. 1636/Kol/2014 (Revenue’s appeal) is dismissed, ITA No

ITA 1636/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 35E

…and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of I.Tax (Appeals), ought to have adjudicated the Ground of Appeal before him in favour of the appellant, as decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Goetze (India) vs. C.I.T. (SC) 284 ITR 323 relied on by him, does not bar the appellate authority to consider the issue even if no revised return have been filed. 3. For that, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeal) ought to have reduced the assessed income by Rs. 2,88,74,000/- as Ld. A.O., while computing the income in the assessment order, has wrongly taken…

Rel Utility Engimeers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7177/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Crest Logistics & Addl. Cit-10(1), Engineers Private Limited, [New Jurisdiction Addl. Cit (Erstwhile Rel Utility 14(3)(1)] Engineers Ltd. Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan, As Rel Utility Engineers Ltd. M.K. Road, Vs. Formerly Known As Mumbai - 400020 Sonata Investments Ltd.), Devidas Lane, Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W) – 400 103 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Crest Logistic & Tax-14(1)(2), Engineering Ltd., Room No.470, 4Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sonata Aayakar Bhavan, Investments Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 307, Charted House, Mumbai - 400020 297/299, Dr. Cawasji Hormosji Street, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth, D.R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Crest Logistics and Addl. CIT-10(1), Engineers Private Limited, [New Jurisdiction Addl. CIT (Erstwhile REL Utility 14(3)(1)] Engineers Ltd. Formerly known Aayakar Bhavan, as REL Utility Engineers Ltd. M.K. Road, Vs. Formerly known as Mumbai - 400020 Sonata Investments Ltd.), Devidas Lane, Near MTNL, Off SVP Road, Borivali (W) – 400 103 PAN: AACCR 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income M/s. Crest L…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Sonata Investments Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6931/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Crest Logistics & Addl. Cit-10(1), Engineers Private Limited, [New Jurisdiction Addl. Cit (Erstwhile Rel Utility 14(3)(1)] Engineers Ltd. Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan, As Rel Utility Engineers Ltd. M.K. Road, Vs. Formerly Known As Mumbai - 400020 Sonata Investments Ltd.), Devidas Lane, Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W) – 400 103 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Crest Logistic & Tax-14(1)(2), Engineering Ltd., Room No.470, 4Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sonata Aayakar Bhavan, Investments Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 307, Charted House, Mumbai - 400020 297/299, Dr. Cawasji Hormosji Street, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth, D.R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Crest Logistics and Addl. CIT-10(1), Engineers Private Limited, [New Jurisdiction Addl. CIT (Erstwhile REL Utility 14(3)(1)] Engineers Ltd. Formerly known Aayakar Bhavan, as REL Utility Engineers Ltd. M.K. Road, Vs. Formerly known as Mumbai - 400020 Sonata Investments Ltd.), Devidas Lane, Near MTNL, Off SVP Road, Borivali (W) – 400 103 PAN: AACCR 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income M/s. Crest L…

Sensiple Software Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the grounds relating to denial of exemption u/s

ITA 600/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 10ASection 10B

…u/s. 1A will not vary. Filing of revised return would arise only when the income returned originally is revised by enhancing or reducing the income in the original return. The AO’s reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetz India Limited Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) will not apply since, there is no variation in the total income. The AO, in any case, failed to consider that while filing the Audit Report in Form No. 56F for claiming deduction u/s. 10A, it was specifically submitted that the return of income already filed be treated as revised accordingly. The AR prayed that the claim for deduction u/s. 10B…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Seth Kumar Rai International, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4277/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 80Section 80H

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi Before : Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No. 4277/Del./2011 Assessment Year: 2001-02 A.C.I.T., Circle 33(1), vs. M/s. Seth Kumar Rai International, New Delhi. 303, Third Floor, 2214, Harichand (Appellant) Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. PAN- AABFS 2134A (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT/DR Respondent by Sh. B.N. Goswami, Advocate Date of Hearing 05.07.2017 Date of Pronouncement 07.07.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)…

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 450/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 24Section 36(1)(iii)Section 48Section 92C

…no jurisdiction to consider the same. That they may choose not to exercise their jurisdiction in a given case is another matter. The exercise of discretion is entirely different from the existence of jurisdiction. The judgment in the case of Goetz reported 284 ITR 323(SC) was confined to a case where the claim was made only before the Assessing Officer and not before the appellate authorities. The Court did not lay down that a claim not made before the Assessing Officer cannot be made before the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negat…