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

Thomas M D'Mello, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and that of the Revenue, both are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6621/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Ashwani Taneja, Am Thomas M D`Mello Dy. Commissioner Of Income 203, La Marie Chs Ltd., Jai Tax, Central Circle-3, Mumbai Vs. Bhawani Mata Road, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058 Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Commissioner Of Income Thomas M D`Mello Tax, Central Circle-3, Mumbai 203, La Marie Chs Ltd., Jai Vs. Bhawani Mata Road, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058

Section 143(3)

…assessee as business income. The AO also not admitted the claim made by assessee in respect of long-term capital loss of Rs.17,14,354/- by stating that the same cannot be admitted in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz(I) P. Ltd 284 ITR 323 (SC). Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), on both the issues, assessee filed additional evidences and stated that while filing the return of income due to inadvertent mistake the gross sale proceeds of shares amounting to Rs.21,53,983/- were shown as long-term capital gain, whereas in actually the assessee has i…

DCIT Central Circle-3, Mumbai vs. Thomas M.D'Mello, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and that of the Revenue, both are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6521/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Ashwani Taneja, Am Thomas M D`Mello Dy. Commissioner Of Income 203, La Marie Chs Ltd., Jai Tax, Central Circle-3, Mumbai Vs. Bhawani Mata Road, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058 Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Commissioner Of Income Thomas M D`Mello Tax, Central Circle-3, Mumbai 203, La Marie Chs Ltd., Jai Vs. Bhawani Mata Road, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058

Section 143(3)

…assessee as business income. The AO also not admitted the claim made by assessee in respect of long-term capital loss of Rs.17,14,354/- by stating that the same cannot be admitted in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz(I) P. Ltd 284 ITR 323 (SC). Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), on both the issues, assessee filed additional evidences and stated that while filing the return of income due to inadvertent mistake the gross sale proceeds of shares amounting to Rs.21,53,983/- were shown as long-term capital gain, whereas in actually the assessee has i…

Mosbacher India Llc, Chennai vs. Addl. DIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1085/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 42(2)Section 42(2)(b)

…ead of income through filing a letter during the course of assessment proceedings” and that “there is no bonafide inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee”. He also placed his reliance on the judicial precedents in the cases of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 323), Sunanda Ram Deka Vs CIT (210 ITR 988), CIT Vs Andhra Cotton Mills Ltd (219 ITR 404) and Golden Installation & Engineering Ltd (305 ITR 427). As for taxability of transaction, the Assessing Officer observed as follows: I.T.A. No. 1085/CHNY/2015 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 4 of 21 II. Further, the assessee's contention that the amount receive…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

ITTA/580/2016HC Telangana28 Nov 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

ACIT, Erode vs. R R Thulasi Builders India (P) Limited, Erode

The appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 695/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. R.R. Thulasi Builders (P) Ltd, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Sakthi Mahal, Income Tax, 63, Perundurai Road, Range -1, Erode 638 011. Erode

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2011-2012. R.R. Thulasi Builders (P) Ltd, Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Sakthi Mahal, Income Tax, 63, Perundurai Road, Range -1, Erode 638 011. Erode आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 695/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2011-2012. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. R.R. Thulasi Builde…

R.R.Thulasi Builders (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. JCIT, Erode

The appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 657/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. R.R. Thulasi Builders (P) Ltd, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Sakthi Mahal, Income Tax, 63, Perundurai Road, Range -1, Erode 638 011. Erode

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2011-2012. R.R. Thulasi Builders (P) Ltd, Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Sakthi Mahal, Income Tax, 63, Perundurai Road, Range -1, Erode 638 011. Erode आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 695/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2011-2012. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. R.R. Thulasi Builde…

West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. The CIT, Kolkata-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 180/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 180/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 West Bengal Housing Development Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Ltd. Circle-11, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaacw4115F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing: 20.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2016

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…l there is likelihood of double taxation in relation to both these issues i.e. inclusion of the waived loan as income and inclusion of sale of land in the return of income for AY 2012-13 by applying the principle laid down in Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that insofar as the revenue receipt for the FY 2010-11 is concerned, it is not open for the assessee to say that there will be corresponding increase in the profit when the property was sold in subsequent years. So also, he defended the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act on the ground that the Ld. P…

Springbird Educations Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. Ward 4(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4471/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar: (A.Y : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)Section 80G

…laimed deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) in the return of income nor any revised return was filed and it was only deduction u/s 80GGA which was claimed. The Assessing Officer referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 denied the claim of assessee observing that there is no claim in the return. The Assessing Officer was 3 M/s. Springbird Educations Pvt. Ltd. also of the opinion that even on merits, the claim of assessee u/s 35(1)(ii) is not allowable observing that assessee failed to file any evidence to show that “Research Foundation for Jainology” was notifi…

Soundarya Decorators Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 539/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.539/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. Supriya Pal, IRS, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.539/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2011-2012 M/s. Soundarya Decorators Pvt. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd, of Income Tax, Plot No.26, Survey No.2 & 3, Company Circle VI(3) Porur Village, Chennai. Kolathur Post, Keezhkataiyur, Chennai 600 048. [PAN AAFCS 8646C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. V.S. J…

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

ITTA/392/2016HC Telangana20 Oct 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Superna R. Motwane, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8864/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.8864/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02) Mrs. Superna R. Motwane, Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Gnyanghar, 14 Th Road, Income Tax, V. Khar (West), Circle – 19(1), Mumbai -400 052. 3 Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpk5356 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap,DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80H

…the assessed income. The assessee ought to have made the claim in the original return or in a revised return but the assessee has not done the same. The AO observed that this view is supported by the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323(SC) wherein it has been held that any change in stand by the assessee should have been taken through filing a revised return of income. The A.O. accordingly disallowed the claim u/s 80HHE of the Act and income was assessed ignoring the claim u/s. 80HHE of the Act as the claim is not legally allowable as held by the AO vide assessment order dated…

M/S the Dream Development Co., Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, WD-27(1), Haldia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1021/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. The Dream Development Company -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-27(1), Purba Medinipur Haldia [Pan: Aafft 2851 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Md.Ghayas Uddin, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2016

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…eturn filed by the assessee. It was the submissions that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had upheld the order of the Assessing Officer by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs.CIT reported in 284 ITR 323(SC). It was the submission that the factum of donation having been given was not disputed. It was submitted that only because the assessee had not made the claim in the original return, the benefit of deduction had not been granted to the assessee. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd (refer to su…

Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…ide ground no.6 assessee is aggrieved on disallowance of upfront lease rent of "27,80,596/-. 41. Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that lower authorities relying on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 refused to consider above claims. As per ld. Authorised Representative long term capital loss was claimed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceeding through letter dated 5.4.2010 addressed to the ld. Assessing Officer. As for upfront lease rent, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted it had made the claim first time made…

Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…ide ground no.6 assessee is aggrieved on disallowance of upfront lease rent of "27,80,596/-. 41. Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that lower authorities relying on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 refused to consider above claims. As per ld. Authorised Representative long term capital loss was claimed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceeding through letter dated 5.4.2010 addressed to the ld. Assessing Officer. As for upfront lease rent, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted it had made the claim first time made…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sundaram Fasterners Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 675/CHNY/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…ide ground no.6 assessee is aggrieved on disallowance of upfront lease rent of "27,80,596/-. 41. Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that lower authorities relying on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 refused to consider above claims. As per ld. Authorised Representative long term capital loss was claimed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceeding through letter dated 5.4.2010 addressed to the ld. Assessing Officer. As for upfront lease rent, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted it had made the claim first time made…

Sundram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. Addl.CIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 591/CHNY/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…ide ground no.6 assessee is aggrieved on disallowance of upfront lease rent of "27,80,596/-. 41. Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that lower authorities relying on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 refused to consider above claims. As per ld. Authorised Representative long term capital loss was claimed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceeding through letter dated 5.4.2010 addressed to the ld. Assessing Officer. As for upfront lease rent, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted it had made the claim first time made…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 &19, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.33, 34 & 35/Mum/2015 (A.Y:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., (Successor on Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of amalgamation of JSW Ispat Steel Ltd.), Income Tax, Central Circle JSW Center, Bandra Kurla Complex, 18 & 19, Mumbai Bandra (E), Mumbai PAN :AAACI 6293F Appellant .. Respondent .. Appellant by Shri Rishabh Shah, AR Respondent by .. Shri Alok Johari, CIT DR .. Date of hearing 10-08-2016 Date of pronouncement .. 28- 09-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 &19, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.33, 34 & 35/Mum/2015 (A.Y:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., (Successor on Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of amalgamation of JSW Ispat Steel Ltd.), Income Tax, Central Circle JSW Center, Bandra Kurla Complex, 18 & 19, Mumbai Bandra (E), Mumbai PAN :AAACI 6293F Appellant .. Respondent .. Appellant by Shri Rishabh Shah, AR Respondent by .. Shri Alok Johari, CIT DR .. Date of hearing 10-08-2016 Date of pronouncement .. 28- 09-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 &19, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.33, 34 & 35/Mum/2015 (A.Y:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., (Successor on Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of amalgamation of JSW Ispat Steel Ltd.), Income Tax, Central Circle JSW Center, Bandra Kurla Complex, 18 & 19, Mumbai Bandra (E), Mumbai PAN :AAACI 6293F Appellant .. Respondent .. Appellant by Shri Rishabh Shah, AR Respondent by .. Shri Alok Johari, CIT DR .. Date of hearing 10-08-2016 Date of pronouncement .. 28- 09-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH…

Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 172/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 172/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-15(1)(2), Caliber Point Business Solutions Room No. 403, 4Th Floor, Ltd. Building No.3, Sector-Ii, बिाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Millenium Business Park, Itc Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Industrial Area, Mhape, Navi Mumbai-400 710 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc 3705 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala
Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 40

…enses. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee had not proved that taxes were paid in the current year. 3 Asst. CIT vs. Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd. He held that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (284 ITR 323) claim made other than by filing revised return of income cannot be admitted. 8. By the impugned order the CIT(A), after verifying the fact that TDS was deducted and paid on the expenses claimed as deduction, held that the assessee company is eligible to claim deduction of the said expenses even though the same was not claimed in return of income…