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.

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 323)

Truetzscheler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2638/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D Karunakara Rao & Shri Cn Prasad: (A.Y : 2005-06) M/S Truetzschler India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Formerly Known As Trumac Circle 2(3) Engineering Co.P.Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg 43, Dr. V.B.Gandhi Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 021 Pan : Aaact2153N (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rushabh Vora प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2016 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 21.01.2014 For The Assessment Year 2005-06 Arising Out Of The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 254

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ ई ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CN PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : (A.Y : 2005-06) M/s Truetzschler India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Formerly Known as Trumac Circle 2(3) Engineering Co.P.Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg 43, Dr. V.B.Gandhi Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 021 PAN : AAACT2153N (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Rushabh Vora प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Revenue by : Shri Akhilendra Yadav सुनवाई…

Pushpa Goel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 7108/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar

Section 48Section 54

…course of the assessment proceedings, and not made by filing income tax return. The Assessing Officer while rejecting the alternate claim of assessee u/s 54 of the Act relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Goetz (India) Ltd., 284 ITR 323 (SC). Thus, the addition towards long term capital gains was made in the case of Mr. Prayas K. Goel at Rs.32,80,185/-; Mr. Prerak K. Goel at Rs.32,80,185/-; and, in the case Pushpa Goel at Rs.62,28,308/- under the head ‘Long Term Capital Gain’ and Rs.6,25,000/- under the head 6 Mr. Prayas K. Goel & 3 Ors. ITA Nos. 7106 to 7108 & 1863/Mum/2014…

Prerak K. Goel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 7107/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar

Section 48Section 54

…course of the assessment proceedings, and not made by filing income tax return. The Assessing Officer while rejecting the alternate claim of assessee u/s 54 of the Act relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Goetz (India) Ltd., 284 ITR 323 (SC). Thus, the addition towards long term capital gains was made in the case of Mr. Prayas K. Goel at Rs.32,80,185/-; Mr. Prerak K. Goel at Rs.32,80,185/-; and, in the case Pushpa Goel at Rs.62,28,308/- under the head ‘Long Term Capital Gain’ and Rs.6,25,000/- under the head 6 Mr. Prayas K. Goel & 3 Ors. ITA Nos. 7106 to 7108 & 1863/Mum/2014…

Prayas K. Goel, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 7106/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar

Section 48Section 54

…course of the assessment proceedings, and not made by filing income tax return. The Assessing Officer while rejecting the alternate claim of assessee u/s 54 of the Act relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Goetz (India) Ltd., 284 ITR 323 (SC). Thus, the addition towards long term capital gains was made in the case of Mr. Prayas K. Goel at Rs.32,80,185/-; Mr. Prerak K. Goel at Rs.32,80,185/-; and, in the case Pushpa Goel at Rs.62,28,308/- under the head ‘Long Term Capital Gain’ and Rs.6,25,000/- under the head 6 Mr. Prayas K. Goel & 3 Ors. ITA Nos. 7106 to 7108 & 1863/Mum/2014…

Kamlesh Goel (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 10, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 1863/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar

Section 48Section 54

…course of the assessment proceedings, and not made by filing income tax return. The Assessing Officer while rejecting the alternate claim of assessee u/s 54 of the Act relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Goetz (India) Ltd., 284 ITR 323 (SC). Thus, the addition towards long term capital gains was made in the case of Mr. Prayas K. Goel at Rs.32,80,185/-; Mr. Prerak K. Goel at Rs.32,80,185/-; and, in the case Pushpa Goel at Rs.62,28,308/- under the head ‘Long Term Capital Gain’ and Rs.6,25,000/- under the head 6 Mr. Prayas K. Goel & 3 Ors. ITA Nos. 7106 to 7108 & 1863/Mum/2014…

Asst CIT Cir 11(5) vs. Jsw Steel Ltd

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 930/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…ssee are not applicable at all. The assessee herein the present case has made a claim before the Assessing Officer by way of simple note which cannot be accepted in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323, which clearly envisages that a claim can only be made through revised income of return. On merits, he submitted that the issue ITA No.923/Bang/2009 & ITA No.930/Bang/2009 15 M/s. JSW Steel Limited, (formerly known as Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Limited) is covered in favour of the department in view of the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Veekaylal…

Jsw Steel Ltd vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(5)

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 923/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…ssee are not applicable at all. The assessee herein the present case has made a claim before the Assessing Officer by way of simple note which cannot be accepted in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323, which clearly envisages that a claim can only be made through revised income of return. On merits, he submitted that the issue ITA No.923/Bang/2009 & ITA No.930/Bang/2009 15 M/s. JSW Steel Limited, (formerly known as Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Limited) is covered in favour of the department in view of the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Veekaylal…

Abc Bearing Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 780/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negithe Dcit, Cir.6(1), Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S.Abc Bearing Ltd. 402-B, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400018 Pan: Aaact 5018Q .... Respondent M/S.Abc Bearing Ltd. 402-B, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400018 Pan: Aaact 5018Q .... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Cir.6(1), Room No.511, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Arun Shenoy

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…has erred in directing the AO to rework the adjustment u/s.145A without there being any claim in this effect by the assessee in its Return of Income in contravention to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323). 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, by admitting a new claim of the assessee, the Ld.ClT(A) exceeded its powers since the power of an appellate authority, as held by Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd, 187 ITR 688, is only coterminous with the powers of the original authority? Assesse…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Abc Bearing Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 638/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negithe Dcit, Cir.6(1), Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S.Abc Bearing Ltd. 402-B, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400018 Pan: Aaact 5018Q .... Respondent M/S.Abc Bearing Ltd. 402-B, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400018 Pan: Aaact 5018Q .... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Cir.6(1), Room No.511, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Arun Shenoy

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…has erred in directing the AO to rework the adjustment u/s.145A without there being any claim in this effect by the assessee in its Return of Income in contravention to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323). 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, by admitting a new claim of the assessee, the Ld.ClT(A) exceeded its powers since the power of an appellate authority, as held by Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd, 187 ITR 688, is only coterminous with the powers of the original authority? Assesse…

Piramal Glass Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 157/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 157/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) M/S Piramal Glass Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As ‘Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd.’) Income Tax 7(3)(2) बनाम/ Room No. 669A, 6Th Floor Piramal Tower Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Aaykar Bahwan Vs. Lower Parel M.K.Road, Churchgate Mumbai 400013 Mumbai 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcg-0093-R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 156Section 92C

…l of provision for bad and doubtful debts made by debiting profit & loss account in earlier years but added back to compute book profits for those years. Although, AO accepted the factual matrix, yet relying upon apex court decision in Goetz India Ltd. Vs CIT 284 ITR 323, did not entertain the claim of the assessee on the premises that the same could be admissible only by way of filing the revised return of income. The assessee took support of CBDT circular No. 14 (XL-35) dated 11/04/1955 to assert that it was the duty of AO to grant the admissible reliefs, although not claimed by the assessee due to oversight /…

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4148/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannuthe Acit-3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services Pvt. Ltd., 154/C, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaacb 2156M .... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Mody

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…oceedings without appreciating the fact that the AO has rejected the same as the assessee has failed to file the revised return within the time allowable as per the IT Act, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of M/s Goetze India Ltd (284 ITR 323). 3. "The appellant prays that the order of CIT (A) on the above ground be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored." 3. In brief, the relevant facts are that the respondent assessee is engaged in the business of share trading and investments. During the year under consideration, it had earned dividend income of Rs.10,25,288/- on equ…

Hybrid Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

Appeals of the Assessee are hereby Partly Allowed

ITA 6571/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.6303/M/12, I.T.A. No. 326/M/14 & 6571/M/14 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12) बनाम/ Hybrid Financial Services Asst. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax 10(3) Vs. 17-A Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room No.473, Raj Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Premises Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 Military Road, Marol, Andheri(East), Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2824M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Angokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194CSection 244ASection 40

…Assessing Officer declined the claim of the assessee on the ground that the same was not raised in the return. The said observations was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. 284 ITR 323 wherein it has been held that the assessee can raise a further claim before the Assessing Officer only by way of a revised return of income. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee can raised the additional ground to accept the claim before the appellate authorities in view of the law settled by Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pruthivi B…

Hybrid Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

Appeals of the Assessee are hereby Partly Allowed

ITA 326/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.6303/M/12, I.T.A. No. 326/M/14 & 6571/M/14 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12) बनाम/ Hybrid Financial Services Asst. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax 10(3) Vs. 17-A Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room No.473, Raj Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Premises Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 Military Road, Marol, Andheri(East), Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2824M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Angokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194CSection 244ASection 40

…Assessing Officer declined the claim of the assessee on the ground that the same was not raised in the return. The said observations was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. 284 ITR 323 wherein it has been held that the assessee can raise a further claim before the Assessing Officer only by way of a revised return of income. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee can raised the additional ground to accept the claim before the appellate authorities in view of the law settled by Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pruthivi B…

Hybrid Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. A, C, I.T.-10(3), Mumbai

Appeals of the Assessee are hereby Partly Allowed

ITA 6303/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.6303/M/12, I.T.A. No. 326/M/14 & 6571/M/14 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12) बनाम/ Hybrid Financial Services Asst. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax 10(3) Vs. 17-A Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room No.473, Raj Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Premises Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 Military Road, Marol, Andheri(East), Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2824M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Angokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194CSection 244ASection 40

…Assessing Officer declined the claim of the assessee on the ground that the same was not raised in the return. The said observations was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. 284 ITR 323 wherein it has been held that the assessee can raise a further claim before the Assessing Officer only by way of a revised return of income. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee can raised the additional ground to accept the claim before the appellate authorities in view of the law settled by Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pruthivi B…

Jm Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), Mumbai

Accordingly dismissed. However, in view of our findings given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3654/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. J.M. Financial Services The Joint Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax (Osd)-4(3), (Formerly Jm Financial Room No.635, Services Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 7Th Floor, Cnergy, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaacj5977A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, D.R

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. J.M. Financial Services The Joint Commissioner of Ltd., Income-tax (OSD)-4(3), (Formerly JM Financial Room No.635, Services Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 7th Floor, Cnergy, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 PAN: AAACJ5977A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income- M/s. J.M. Financial Services tax-4(3), Ltd., 6th Fl., R. No.649, (Formerly JM Financial Aayakar…

Dr. Syed Anwar, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 404/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Respondent: Shri M.K.Biju, JCIT

Section 234ASection 250Section 70

…return of income, such claim made by the assessee in course of assessment proceedings is not allowable. He submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s Goetze India Ltd vs. 4 ITA No.404(B)/2016 CIT as reported in 284 ITR 323, the embargo is on the AO but not on appellate authorities being the CIT(A) or the Tribunal. He submitted that the CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merit. 4. The ld. DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered rival submissions. We find force in the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee that…

Laxmi Narayan Yadava, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4973/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

For Appellant: Shri Satish Kumar Dhingra, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…duction. The AO denied this claim by observing that such a claim was not entertainable otherwise than through a revised return. For this proposition, he relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the view point of the AO. 9. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, it is found as an admitted position that the assessee paid EPF and ESI etc. before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Act. ITA Nos.4973&4974/Del/2006 5 10. As regards the AO’s point of view…

Huntsman International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2161/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Mr. Bandish Soparkar (AR)For Respondent: Mr. B.C.S. Naik (CIT-DR)

Section 253Section 254(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35DSection 43B

…ducts Ltd (295 ITR 466). 3.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that the appellant did not originally claim the aforesaid foreign exchange loss in its return of income and accordingly, erred in applying the ratio of the decision of Goetz India Ltd vs CIT (284 ITR 323). GROUND NO. 4: Disallowance of share issue expenditure 4.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing share issue expenditure of Rs.24,00,100/- (l/5th of Rs.1,20,00,500/-) claimed by the appellant under section 35D of the Act. GROUND NO. 5: General 5.1 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or substitute all or any of the foregoing gro…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Indian Film Company (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 531/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-5048/Del/2012(A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A .No.-531/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 5Section 80Section 9(1)(i)

…on 80 are satisfied. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the carry forward of loss was done during the assessment proceedings and not at the time of filing return of income he submitted the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT 2006 284 ITR 323 as well as CIT Vs. Natraj Stationary Products Pvt. Ltd 2009, 312 ITR 22 Delhi Influence Vs. CIT 2015 55 Taxman.com 192 and also Jai Bharat Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO 2010 125 ITD, 19 ITAT, Mumbai. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot adjudicate the claim of the assessee which was nowhere on the record in the li…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Indian Film Company (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5048/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-5048/Del/2012(A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A .No.-531/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 5Section 80Section 9(1)(i)

…on 80 are satisfied. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the carry forward of loss was done during the assessment proceedings and not at the time of filing return of income he submitted the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT 2006 284 ITR 323 as well as CIT Vs. Natraj Stationary Products Pvt. Ltd 2009, 312 ITR 22 Delhi Influence Vs. CIT 2015 55 Taxman.com 192 and also Jai Bharat Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO 2010 125 ITD, 19 ITAT, Mumbai. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot adjudicate the claim of the assessee which was nowhere on the record in the li…

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

What is Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

Truetzscheler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

Pushpa Goel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

Prerak K. Goel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

Prayas K. Goel, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

Kamlesh Goel (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 10, Mumbai

Asst CIT Cir 11(5) vs. Jsw Steel Ltd

Jsw Steel Ltd vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(5)

Abc Bearing Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Abc Bearing Ltd, Mumbai

Piramal Glass Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3)(2), Mumbai

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

Hybrid Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

Hybrid Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

Hybrid Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. A, C, I.T.-10(3), Mumbai

Jm Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), Mumbai

Dr. Syed Anwar, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

Laxmi Narayan Yadava, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Huntsman International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Indian Film Company (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Indian Film Company (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi