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 WD 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dhfl Venture Capital Fund, Mumbai

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

ITA 3179/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

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…

ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Dhfl Venture Capital Fund, Mumbai

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

ITA 3264/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

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…

Tcfc Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1173/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1172 /Mum/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1173 /Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Tcfc Finance Limited Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 502, Raheja Chambers, Ward 3(3)(3) Nariman Point Mumbai Vs. Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2710-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah & Shri JayFor Respondent: Dr. A.K. Nayak, Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

…urse of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised calculation of LTCL on account of sale of certain shares which resulted into increase in Long Term Capital Loss by Rs.37,20,693/-. However, the Ld. AO, relying upon the decision in Goetz India Ltd. [284 ITR 323] rejected the same, it being a new claim. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same on the same analogy Assessment Years-2005-06 & 2006-07 and aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us by way of Ground No.2. The assessee placed reliance on various judicial pronouncement to contend that the assessee made a mistake in computation of Long Term Capital…

Tcfc Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(3)(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1172/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1172 /Mum/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1173 /Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Tcfc Finance Limited Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 502, Raheja Chambers, Ward 3(3)(3) Nariman Point Mumbai Vs. Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2710-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah & Shri JayFor Respondent: Dr. A.K. Nayak, Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

…urse of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised calculation of LTCL on account of sale of certain shares which resulted into increase in Long Term Capital Loss by Rs.37,20,693/-. However, the Ld. AO, relying upon the decision in Goetz India Ltd. [284 ITR 323] rejected the same, it being a new claim. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same on the same analogy Assessment Years-2005-06 & 2006-07 and aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us by way of Ground No.2. The assessee placed reliance on various judicial pronouncement to contend that the assessee made a mistake in computation of Long Term Capital…

Karsan D Gori, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

ITA 1638/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.1638/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Karsan D Gori, Income Tax Officer 22(1)(3), 42, Karishma Chs, Mumbai. फनाभ/ Gandhi Nagar, Sarvodaya, Vs. Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086 Appellant Respondent Pan: Acbpg2357D अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Dhirajlal Z Patel प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 4.4.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of : 27.4.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-Mumbai, Dated 16.12.2013, Pertains To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee In All The Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.22,42,843/- By The Ld.Cit(A) As Made By The Ao On Account Of Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg).

For Appellant: Shri Dhirajlal Z PatelFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…of Rs.13,62,900/- in new house property and hence he requested the AO to grant exemption u/s 54F of the Act but the same was declined by the AO by referring and relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd V/s CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The said property was purchased on 28.7.2004 for a total consideration of Rs.6 lakhs and other expenses like stamp duty, renovation cost of Rs.47,000/-. The AO worked out capital gains as under : Sale consideration : Rs.30,00,000 Less brokerage : Rs. 51,111 Net consideration : Rs.29,48,889 Less Indexed cost of acquisition: Rs. 8,06,046 (664…

A.Senthil Kumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for 5

ITA 19/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 19/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT
Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 54B

…) of the Act for considering such a claim, which reduced the income to nil. As per ld. Authorised Representative reliance placed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 was wrong. According to him, Hon’ble Apex Court had circumscribed the powers of ld. Assessing Officer only with regard to a fresh claim, but appellate authorities could consider a claim which was statutorily allowable to the assessee. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd vs. CIT…

Law Charter, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4875/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4875/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Law Charter, The Asstt. Comm. Of बनाम/ 1, Raja Bahadur Mansion, Income Tax – Circle 11(2), V. Hanuman Street, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai– 400 023. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabfl 2094 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.J. AsraniFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 37

…red wholly and exclusively for the purpose of appellant. Therefore, I am in agreement with the AO that the claim which was not made in the original return cannot be claimed by way of revised return as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR 323(Supreme Court). The case laws relied by the appellant cannot be taken as precedent as the facts of the case are different and depend upon each case to each case. There/ore, there cannot be any precedent on the facts of the case, as every decision has to be understood in the light of the facts of that case'. As rightly said by the Hon'ble Supreme…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Dinesh Shrama, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 226/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 133Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 34Section 48

…FIT FOR PUBLICATION (AM) (JM) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-226/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) DCIT, Vs Dinesh Sharma, Circle-32(10, Room No.1502, 389, Masjid Moth, Block E-2, 15th Floor, NDSE-II, New Delhi- Shyama Prasad Mukherjee 110027. Civic Centre, Minto Road, PAN-AARPS5040F New Delhi. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh.Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Revenue by Sh.G.N.Gupta, Adv. ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A). The present appeal has be…

M/S. Satnam Overseas Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4486/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2010-11 Satnam Overseas Exports, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 201, Vipps Centre, 2- 28, Community Complex, New Delhi. Masjid Moth, Gk-Ii, New Delhi. Pan: Aacfs 5863 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Shri Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)- Xix, New Delhi, Vide Order Dated 21.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised As Many As Eleven Grounds Of Appeal. As A Matter Of Fact The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Pressed Only Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Which Pertained To One Issue Only & The Said Grounds Are Reproduced Hereinbelow. “3. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That No Cognizance Can Be Taken Of The Claim Made By The Assessee That Sale Of Property Be Treated As Capital Gain & Indexation Benefit Should Be Allowed To The Assessee. The Action Of The Cit(A) In Rejecting The Claim Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 4. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessee Did Not Acquire Any Capital Asset & Hence Did Not Acquire Any Rights Over The Property. 5. The Interpretation Given By The Cit(A) Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Contrary To The Judgments & Well Settled Principles Of Law. Moreover The Cit(A) Has Failed To Examine The Material On Record In A Judicious Manner.” 2

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)(ii)

…13. The said decision dated 2nd September, 2013 of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is reproduced hereinbelow: “Revenue in this appeal, which pertains to assessment year 2001- 02, rely upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The contention is that the respondent-assessee should be denied deduction under Section 10 (35)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act) and claim of business loss of Rs.85,18,854/- should be rejected as no revised return was filed under Section 139(5) of the Act. 3 2. It is an accepted position that the assessee had not claimed the said deduct…

The Rajasthan State Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 266/JPR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A)For Respondent: Shri R.A.Verma (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 266/JP/2013 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2007-08 cuke M/s The Rajasthan Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. State Co-operative Tax, Circle-06, Jaipur Bank Ltd., 2nd Floor, Apex Building, Nehru Bazar, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAT0824G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.R. S…

Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4480/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4480/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Dr. Anupama Singla, Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…r it was the disallowance made by the assessee suo-moto in the return of income and what assessee is seeking is revision of income without filing revised return of income which was not permissible as per the ruling of Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT [284 ITR 323]. Moreover, the acceptance of assessee’s claim would have resulted into amendment / lowering of income beyond returned income which was not possible without filing a revised return of income. Further, the assessee never raised this issue before Ld. AO and contested the same for the first time before Ld. CIT(A) whereas the issue was factual one on…

Open Solutions Software Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7078/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Amit Shuklain Ita No. 7078/Del/2014 Ay: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T.M.Shiva Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144(5)

…it, only on the ground that the assessee has not filed any revised return of income for making such a claim. In coming to this conclusion the AO had strongly relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323, however even the DRP has rejected the claim on same ground which is not correct. On the other hand Ld. DR relied upon the order of DRP. 15. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders, we find that the assessee has filed a revised computation of book profit as per the provision of Sec.115JB during the course of assessme…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Kaytee Corporation P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue is Partly

ITA 2277/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 14A

…in A.Y.2007-08, ignoring that the assessee had not made a claim in its return for the A.Y.2006-07 nor filed a revised return of claim the said expenses, which is in contravention of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. [284 ITR 323]. 5. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the decision of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the AO restored.” Apropos Ground No. 1:- 3. On this issue Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation on motor car since the same was registered in the name of the Director and not the company. Before the…

Srf Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we also set aside the appeal of the assessee against chargeability of interest under section 234C of the income tax act back to the file of the Ld

ITA 2181/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishisrf Limited, Vs. Dcit, Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon Circle-9(1), Pan: Aaacs0206P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Srf Limited, Vs. Circle-9(1), Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan: Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Srf Limited, Vs. Addl Cit, Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon Circle-9(1), Cr Building, Pan: Aaacs0206P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 208Section 234C

…ch claim was not accepted by the Ld. assessing officer as according to him, even in the revised return filed by the assessee on 31/03/2008 this was not claimed. He further referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Goetz India Ltd versus CIT 284 ITR 323 and submitted that no such claim can be entertained by him without their being revised return. The assessee contested the above finding of the Ld. AO before the Ld. CIT appeal who also rejected the claim of the assessee stating that the appellate authorities can only entertain a question of law and thus the claim, which has not been made before t…

DCIT Cir 35(2), Mumbai vs. Nitu Anand Bhushan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3590/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri D. Karunakara Raodcit- Circle-35(2), फनाभ/ Smt. Nitu Anand Bhushan, Mumbai. 805, Carnatin Dosti Acres, Vs. Off. Antop Hill Road, Wadala (E), Mumbai – 400 037. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Afcpc7434H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.1/M/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3590/M/2015 (Ay 2011-2012) फनाभ/ Dcit- Circle-35(2), Smt. Nitu Anand Bhushan, Mumbai. 805, Carnatin Dosti Acres, Vs. Off. Antop Hill Road, Wadala (E), Mumbai – 400 037. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Afcpc7434H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai, DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Ghosh
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 251Section 54

…red in setting aside the issue and directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim u/s 54 of the Act even though the assessee had made no such claim in his return of income disregarding the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetzer (India) Ltd (284 ITR 323) (SC).” 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee, who is an individual, filed the return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 28,18,650/-. Assessee shown the said income under the heads „salary‟ and „loss from house property‟. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3)(ii) of the Act and the assessed income was determin…

M/S. Global Televenture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1341/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…Rule, 1962 is in conformity to this fundamental rule. 3.6 The provisions of Rule 29 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 is in conformity to this fundamental rule. 37 3.7 The ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT 284 ITR 323(5(:)/ 2006-TIOL-198-SC-IT (that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return) is in conformity to this fundamental rule. Also, another ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment (that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for th…

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1336/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…Rule, 1962 is in conformity to this fundamental rule. 3.6 The provisions of Rule 29 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 is in conformity to this fundamental rule. 37 3.7 The ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT 284 ITR 323(5(:)/ 2006-TIOL-198-SC-IT (that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return) is in conformity to this fundamental rule. Also, another ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment (that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for th…

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1335/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…Rule, 1962 is in conformity to this fundamental rule. 3.6 The provisions of Rule 29 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 is in conformity to this fundamental rule. 37 3.7 The ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT 284 ITR 323(5(:)/ 2006-TIOL-198-SC-IT (that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return) is in conformity to this fundamental rule. Also, another ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment (that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for th…

M/S. Global Realty Creations Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1245/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…Rule, 1962 is in conformity to this fundamental rule. 3.6 The provisions of Rule 29 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 is in conformity to this fundamental rule. 37 3.7 The ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT 284 ITR 323(5(:)/ 2006-TIOL-198-SC-IT (that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return) is in conformity to this fundamental rule. Also, another ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment (that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for th…

ITO 15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Shivraj Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mumbai

ITA 5268/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhिनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5268/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4) M/S. Shivraj Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Matru Mandir, Room No.111, Grant S.S. Sanstha Maryadit, Omkar Chs, Bldg. Road(W) Vs. No.32/934, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai. Pan:Aaajs 2751 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. A.K. Nayak-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2017 लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार /Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 16/06/2014 Of The Cit (A)-26, Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee, An Aop, Filed Its Return Of Income On 13/09/2010, Declaring Total Income At Rs. Nil, After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Act, Amounting Rs. 44.50 Lakhs. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S. 143 (3) Of The Act, On 28/03/2013, Determining Its Income At Rs. 44, 50, 811/-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. A.K. Nayak-DR
Section 143Section 2Section 56Section 80P

…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…