How many judgments cite Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT?

1,842 judgments on BharatTax cite Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 153A.

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 367,154 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 14A Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 153A Section 143(1)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 139(5)book profits section 115j revenue expenditure section 115jb capital expenditure disallowance under section 14a section 32 section 254 section 37(1)transfer pricing adjustment liable to tax

Judgments citing Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

Sh. Prabhati Lal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

ITA 1021/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 54

…54 is not allowed by the CIT(A) for the reason that the claim cannot be entertained at appeal proceedings as assessee has not claimed the same in the return filed u/s 148 of Act. It may be noted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 has held that there is no power in the hands of AO to entertain claim made otherwise than by way of filing revised return but it is clarified that this decision did not impinge upon the power of ITAT u/s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to entertain the claim made for the first time before it. Reliance is placed on the following cases wherein afte…

Siddha Sakthi Arutjothi Kalvi Nilayam, Arialur, Ariyalur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Trichy

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

ITA 3393/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3393/Chny/2024 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Siddha Sakthi Arutjothi Vallalar Kalvi Income Tax Officer, Nilayam, Vs. Exemption Ward, Lingathadimedu, Trichy. Ariyalur – 621 705. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aabts-1168-C] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. P.M Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

…ward children and is also funded by the government. This fresh claim was made before the appellate authorities, (i.e.) the ld.CIT(A) and this tribunal, which is valid as per the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India Ltd v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 232(SC). Hence, we direct the AO to examine these alternative claims in case the exemption u/s.11 of the Act fails on account of CBDT refusing to condone the delay in filing the Audit Report in Form 10B. In the event that none of the exemptions claimed are available to the assessee, it is directed the AO to tax the net income of the assessee after al…

Bsc C&C Jv, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4546/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Bsc C&C Joint Venture, Vs. Acit, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Circle-62(1), New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadfb8115G Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…before the tribunal for the first time was rejected in the absence of facts and Form No. 10CCB on record. d) The claim can be made only through return of income by referring to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323(SC). e) There was no reasonable and sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from making the claim of deduction in the return of income. 5. The learned AR before us has submitted that allowability of deduction under section 80 IA(4)(i) of the Act in respect of various infrastructural projects undertaken by the assessee is principally upheld…

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1513/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…that the AO/CIT(A) denied both reliefs i.e; gratuity claim of Rs.95,28,299/- and contribution to Child Trust Medical Research foundation 175% under S.35(1)(ii) based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) that he has no power to entertain the new claim which has not been claimed in ITR or in P&L a/c submitted. 13. Per Contra, the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee in appeal before us. 14. We have heard rival submissions and perused th…

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1512/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1511/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT Circle, 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1887/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: S/Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Vinay Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Suganthamala T M, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 40Section 92C

…ssment proceedings, the assessee claimed to reduce its income by Rs 545,30,728 as the assessee did not file any revised return and has not claimed in its original return, therefore placing reliance on the decision of Goetze India Ltd.[ TS-21-SC-2006- O](2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) 157 Taxman 01 The ld. AO did not accept IT(TP)A No.1887/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 14 the argument of the assessee in the draft assessment order. On objection before the ld. DRP, same was rejected holing that a fresh claim during the assessment proceedings is not accepted. Accordingly the total income of Rs. 20,19,047 was determined. The assessee…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Evry India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 948/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 244ASection 90

…d revised return within the time allowed. Since, the assessee failed to do so, the claim could not be entertained at the assessment stage. The learned DR further pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 has clearly held that the Assessing Officer cannot admit a fresh claim otherwise than by filing a revised return. Therefore, according to him, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not applying this legal position. 7. On the other hand, the learned AR argued that the assessee is eligible for foreign tax credit as the provision under India-Norway DTAA…

M/S. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2492/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Acit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi- Circle-16(1), 110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 16Section 44Section 45Section 4A

…sessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in assesses‟s own case for earlier years reported in 291 ITR 370, proceeded to dismiss the claim of the assessee by applying the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323. We find that in the last paragraph of the decision of Goetze referred (supra), it has been categorically made clear that the power to entertain fresh claim of the assessee has been curtailed only for the AO and not for the appellate authorities. Hence, we hold that ld CIT(A) grossly erred in not following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3756/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Yr.: 2006-07

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 44CSection 90

…rther it has been submitted that interest paid by HO is not in connection with any indebtedness but on account of deposits. The ld CTT(A) stated that claim is not eligible in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetz India Lat Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323. xx xx xxx 23. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the order of the coordinate bench in ITA No. 306/Del/2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12 wherein, the claim of the assessee is discussed and allowed vide para No. 5 to 8 of the order Therefore, we are of the view that issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the…

Asianet Satellite Communications Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 475/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 40A(7)

…ludes disallowance of claim for deduction of provisions for gratuity payable to approved gratuity fund made during the course of assessment proceedings placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 5. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the disallowance of provision fund of Rs. 5,75,04,368/- by holding that the appellant had not made the claim in their return of income placing reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Wipro Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 212 DT…

Asianet Satellite Communications Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 474/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 40A(7)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(1), Delhi, Cr Building vs. Indus Towers Limited, Gurgram

ITA 2805/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142Section 143(3)

…on schedule wherein we find that the energy saving device which had been installed with the assessee fall under category of 80% rate of depreciation. The ld AO had applied the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) to deny the claim of additional allowance towards enhanced rate of Page | 32 depreciation on energy saving devices. We find that the said decision is not applicable to appellate authorities and hence, the ld CIT(A) ought to have considered the claim of the assessee on merits. Since, the said issue is glaring on us, we proceed to decide the s…

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurugram, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

ITA 2607/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142Section 143(3)

…on schedule wherein we find that the energy saving device which had been installed with the assessee fall under category of 80% rate of depreciation. The ld AO had applied the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) to deny the claim of additional allowance towards enhanced rate of depreciation on energy saving devices. We find that the said decision is not applicable to appellate authorities and hence, the ld CIT(A) ought to have considered the claim of the assessee on merits. Since, the said issue is glaring on us, we proceed to decide the same at our…

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1530/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 80A(5)

…of the Act thereon before the AO at the time of assessment. The AO rejected the said claim for the reason that the said claim was not made in the return of income and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323. The CIT(A)/NFAC rejected the said claim for a different reason by relying on section 80A(5) of the Act and by concluding that said claim was not made in the return of income and hence not allowable as per section 80A(5) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the above decision and held as under- “19.2 In view of the above, we hold that the assessee…

ACIT, Cir-1(1), Rajkot vs. Shri Rajkot District Co Operative Bank Ltd, Rajkot

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.188/RJT/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAAAR0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri…

Dr.Rangasamy Sudha, Erode vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1007/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1007/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-24 The Income-Tax Officer, Dr. Rangasamy Sudha, 448, Maragathavalli Hospital, Vs. Ward 1(1), Erode. E.V.N. Road, Erode – 638 009. [Pan:Ajcps-0749-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Manickasundaram, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. Manickasundaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 80CSection 80T

…below and the paper book filed by the assessee. 7. It is trite law that a fresh claim of deduction made before the FAA has to be entertained by him. We rely on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd v CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v Abhinitha Foundation (P.) Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 251 (Mad.) and Ramco :-3-: ITA. Nos:1007/Chny/2025 Cements Ltd. v DCIT [2015] 373 ITR 146 (Mad.), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Private Ltd [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v Jai Parabolic Springs…

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3183/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…late proceedings for the block assessments completed u/s.153A. 19. The CIT(A), upon calling for a remand report dated 18.01.2023, declined to admit the claim, holding it to be inadmissible in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Goetze (India) Ltd. [284 ITR 323 (SC)], on the ground that the claim had not been made in the original or revised returns. The assessee, however, relied upon the well-settled principle that the restriction laid down in Goetze (India) applies only to the Assessing Officer and not to the appellate authorities, who are vested with wide plenary powers to consider fresh legal claims…

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3182/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…late proceedings for the block assessments completed u/s.153A. 19. The CIT(A), upon calling for a remand report dated 18.01.2023, declined to admit the claim, holding it to be inadmissible in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Goetze (India) Ltd. [284 ITR 323 (SC)], on the ground that the claim had not been made in the original or revised returns. 22 ITA No.3177/Mum/2025 and others Leshark Global LLP The assessee, however, relied upon the well-settled principle that the restriction laid down in Goetze (India) applies only to the Assessing Officer and not to the appellate authorities, who are vested w…

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3181/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…llate proceedings for the block assessments completed u/s.153A. 19. The CIT(A), upon calling for a remand report dated 18.01.2023, declined to admit the claim, holding it to be inadmissible in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Goetze (India) Ltd. [284 ITR 323 (SC)], on the ground that the claim had not been made in the original or revised returns. 25 ITA No.3177/Mum/2025 and others Leshark Global LLP The assessee, however, relied upon the well-settled principle that the restriction laid down in Goetze (India) applies only to the Assessing Officer and not to the appellate authorities, who are vested w…