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 367,181 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 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

Amtex Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 574/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.574/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 254

…submission that the assessee had no objection if the AO is directed to :- 3 -: verify the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.10A if directed by the Tribunal in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 323 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held as under: 4. The decision in question is that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Iswara, Cochin

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

ITA 122/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234(1)Section 234BSection 50BSection 54ESection 54F

…e for the deduction u/s. 54F in respect of the investment in residential flat amounting to Rs.39,26,130. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) did not grant the deduction following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). However, the Supreme Court has clarified in the said order that the mandate of the judgment was limited to the power of the assessing authority and did not impinge on the power of the appellate authority. Hence, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) being an appellate authority should have granted the deduction u/s. 54F on the investment in r…

DCIT, Circle-7, Kolkata vs. M/S. East India Business Centre (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 154

…ITA No.1882/Kol/2014 M/s. East India Business Centre (P)Ltd A.Y.2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 D.C.I.T., Circle-7, -vs.- M/s. East India Business Centre Kolkata (P) Ltd., Kolkata. [PAN : AABCE 7659 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : None Date of Hearing : 31.05.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2017. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated.22.07.2014 relating to AY 2008-09…

M/S.Cpg Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-

ITA 1596/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazcpg Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., 21/30, Prestige Craig House, Craig Park Layout, M.G Road, Bengaluru. . Appellant Aaccp8208P. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1)(1), Bengaluru. . Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 36(2)

…urn of income, the same was rejected by the AO. The ld CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s claim for being allowed the write off of the said bad ITA No.1596/B/16 3 debts, stating in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) (284 ITR 323) (SC) the assessee’s claim was rightly denied by the AO. 3.1 The assessee, aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-2, Bangalore dated 9/6/2016 for asst. year 2011-12, has filed this appeal raising the following grounds:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. Learned Co…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6802/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…ditional ground cannot be raised at this point for the reason the fact on which the legal point is being raised is not before the ITAT. Cases Relied are: 1. Manish Buildwel 18 taxmann.com 27(Del) 2. Keshav Mills Co Ltd 56 ITR 365 (SC) 3. Goetze India Ltd 284 ITR 323(SC) 4. Gurjargravres P Ltd 11 ITR 1 (SC) 5. Inventors Industrial Corpn Ltd 194 ITR 548(Bom) 2. If jurisdiction of the person searched as well as the jurisdiction of the Assessee to whom the notice u/s 153C is to be issued, both are vested with the same Assessing Officer, satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is sufficient irrespecti…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6801/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

Late K.Sengoda Gounder, L/R Shri S.Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Salem

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

ITA 306/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 10(37)

…ause notice, the assessee made an alternate claim u/s.10(37) of the Income Tax Act and requested the AO to allow the exemption of long term capital gains. The AO following the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323/157 Taxman 1 (SC) rejected the alternate claim made by the assessee, since the claim for exemption was not made through revised return of income. 4.0 The assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee following the decision of Hon’ble Apex court cite(supra). For the sake of convenience and cla…

DCIT, Central Cir. VI, Kolkata vs. M/S J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

ITA 611/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…ing aggrieved, is in appeal before us on the following ground:- “(iii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and circumstances of the case in admitting, going against the ration laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd –vs-CIT [284 ITR 323 (SC) (2006)], the fresh claim of the assessee in respect of additional depreciation on interest capitalized which was never made by the assessee in the return of income or in the course of assessment and consequently, in directing to allow the additional claim of depreciation of Rs.72,69,648/-.” 21. Before us both the parties relied on the order…

West Gujarat Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 664/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The IL & FS Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block BKC Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 PIN No. AAACW5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, The IL & FS Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block BKC 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 PIN No. AAACW5862D Appellant .. Resp…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 634/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)

Shri.K.G.Shivarudraiah, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore

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

ITA 2045/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT)-3, Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2006-07 Shri K.G. Shivarudraiah, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, “Shivakrupa Nilaya”, Ward 7(2)(2), Kagadasapur, Bangalore. C.V. Raman Nagar Post, Bangalore – 560 093. PAN: ADGPS 5896F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Shri M.K. Biju, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT)-3, Bengaluru Date of hearing : 15.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 26.05.2017 O R D E R This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CI…

Elemention Health & Sports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5668/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2007-08

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

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 32(1)Section 37(1)

…Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688) is not applicable to the case of the appellant company. ITA Nos. 5668/Del./11 & 2355/Del./13 3 5. For that the question before the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323) being entirely different, reliance placed by the Id CIT (A) on the said judgment to reject the claim of the appellant company, is misplaced rendering the impugned order to be unsustainable. 6. For that the ld CIT (A) erred in holding that the aforesaid expenditure of Rs.40,32,338/- resulted in creation of an asset in the nature of "building" on…

The ITO-2(2), Indore vs. Smt. Mohan Bai Pokhrana, Indore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 468/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.468/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

…e Appellate Authorities are empowered to entertain legal claim as held by the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. [I.T.A. No. 390 of 2010 dtd. 21-06-2012] wherein the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. v CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) was analyzed and it was held that legal claim can be entertained by Appellate Authorities. The learned counsel further submitted that the assessee has purchased agricultural land on 10-07-1997. The use of said land was changed from agriculture to non-agricultural on 11-11- 2003. However, till the date of sale of land, the said land ITO 2(2)…

ACIT 12(2), Mumbai vs. Neena Rajan Mehara, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7189/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 43

…ITA No. 7189/M/2012 for AY 2006-07 ITA No. 3015/M/2012 for AY 2008-09 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHAHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7189/M/2012 for AY 2006-07 ITA No. 3015/M/2012 for AY 2008-09 Dy CIT -12(2), Mrs. Neena Rajan Mehra, Room No.114, Aayakar Bhavan, 8, Best Road, Colaba, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20 Mumbai-400039 Versus PAN No.AANPM7634D Appellant Respondent Appellant/ Revenue by Sh. Suman Kumar DR Respondent / Assessee by Sh. Hiro Rai Advocate Date of hearing: 27/04/2017 Date of order: 17/05/2017 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1…

JCIT RG 12(2), Mumbai vs. Neena Rajan Mehra, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3015/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 43

Eastern Coalfilelds Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Asansol

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

ITA 467/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 467/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Eastern Coalfields Ltd. -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Dist. Burdwan Asansol. [Pan : Aaace 7590 E] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.01.2014 Of C.I.T.(A)-Asansol Relating To A.Y.2006-07. 2. This Appeal Arises Out Of An Order Passed Determining The Value Of Fringe Benefit For The Purpose Of Payment Of Fringe Benefit Tax Under The Provision Of Section 115We(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT(DR)

Section 115W

…upheld the order of AO for the reason that the assessee did not file the revised return of the value of fringe benefit as contemplated u/s 115WD(4) of the Act. According to CIT(A) as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) vs CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) no claim can be entertained without the assessee filing a revised return. The CIT(A) accordingly upheld the order of AO for the reason that revised return of value of fringe benefit was not filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the riva…

Arsh Iron & Steel Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-3, Asansol

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 206/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…f assessment proceedings, which was not accepted by AO. 29. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who denied the additional depreciation by observing as under:- “30. The matter is covered y decision in case Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) 284 ITR 323. As per the decision any change to return of income must be through a revised return of income. In this case there is no revised return of income and hence the claim for additional depreciation is not admissible. Further additional depreciation is governed by section 329(1)9iia) and explanation 5 to section 32(1)(ii) cannot be applied to section…

ACIT, Cir-30, Kolkata vs. Sheela Devi Kanoria, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1172/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…I.T.A. No. 1172/KOL./2014 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 1172/KOL/ 2014 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,.................................Appellant Circle-30, Kolkata, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700 068 -Vs.- Sheela Devi Kanoria,...............................................................Respondent 2, Sunny Park, Kolkata-700 019 [PAN: AFQPK 5331 R] Appearances by: Shri R.K. Kureel, JCIT, D.R., for…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Road Safety Club Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 537/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 537/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013

For Respondent: Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate

Section 10(1)

…laimed at Rs.3,32,59,309/- originally in its return but enhanced such amount to Rs.7,22,41,243/- by revising its statement of computation but without filing a revised return. Reliance was placed on Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). 9. Per contra, the Id. AR. strongly supported the order of Id. CIT(A). 10. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. For the preceding assessment year, the ITA No.537/Mds/2017. :- 8 -: changed method of accounting adopted by assessee, claiming future insurance premium also, was not allowed by Assessing Officer and this was…

ITO 23(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dhfl Venture Capital Fund, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 734/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, D.R

Section 10Section 161Section 61

…e has altered the claim of exemption of u/s.10(23FB) which was claimed in submission at the time of assessment proceedings on its own on several occasions; this view has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [284 ITR 323 (SC)] wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that an assessee can not amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. (7) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the income of Rs.32,83,77,906/- was not taxable in the hands of the assesse…