Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

284 ITR 323Supreme Court of India2006#13 most cited

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

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

1,842

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Goetze (India) Ltd v CIT · new claim by assessee · additional ground · revised return of income · section 139(5) · Assessing Officer powers · CIT(A) powers · ITAT powers · assessment proceedings · fresh claim · 284 ITR 323

Also reported as

157 Taxmann 1204 CTR 182157 Taxmann.com 1

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 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

V. Hotels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3189/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ermissible, by filing a revised Return of Income as per law, and if no claim was made in the original/ revised return, the deduction is not allowable in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Goetze India Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC)." 36 CO No. 25/Mum/2016 and three cross appeals of same group M/s V Hotels Ltd, Formerly Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd "3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate and give a finding on the applicability of ration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision cited supra and relied up…

Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Ltd., Kolkata vs. The CIT -3, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Shree Ganesh V/S. The Cit, Kolkata-3 Jewellery House Ltd Kolkata Pan: Aagcs 7343P .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263

…apportioned to the different units of the assessee. On this issue, the assessee admitted the same and filed revised computation of income which was rejected by the AO in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323(SC). The relevant extract of assessee submission before the AO is reproduced below : “7. In the written submission regarding the apportionment expenses, the assessee has also claimed that interest income from fixed deposit is also to be apportioned among different units as the FD was pledged as lien for obtaining loan.” The relevant observation…

Hdfc Bank Td, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5481/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. TharFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘एच’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5480&5481/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007& 2007-2008) M/s HDFC Bank Ltd.(Successor to Vs. ACIT-2(3), Mumbai Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd.), HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAACH 2702 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Yogesh A. Thar याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Abhishek Sharma सुनवा…

Hdfc Bank Td, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5480/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. TharFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘एच’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5480&5481/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007& 2007-2008) M/s HDFC Bank Ltd.(Successor to Vs. ACIT-2(3), Mumbai Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd.), HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAACH 2702 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Yogesh A. Thar याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Abhishek Sharma सुनवा…

DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. Dhl Lemuir Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6762/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Nabin Kumar Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay KothariFor Respondent: Shri B. Jaykumar

…odwill not through his return of income or even by filing a revised return of income. As the assessee had claimed the deduction through a letter, the Assessing Officer relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. v/s CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), held that there is no provision under the Act to amend the original return of income through an application without filing a revised return of income. Accordingly, he disallowed assessee’s claim of depreciation. Being 4 M/s. DHL Lemuir Logistics P. Ltd. aggrieved of the disallowance, assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commission…

DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata vs. M/S Joonktollee Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/KOL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Bhide, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

…and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also." 8. Decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was distinguished in Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra) in the following words:- "In Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the deci…

Raychem Rpg P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4780/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Nabin Kumar Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prakash R. Mane
Section 10BSection 145ASection 71

…assessment or even before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), it should not be permitted to raise a completely new issue at the second appellate stage. In this context, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. v/s CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). Alternatively, it was submitted by the learned Departmental Representative as the issue has been raised for the first time it may be restored back. 11. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. As far as the admission of additional ground is concerned, we have noted that in the course o…

N.Al.Periyakarupan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/CHNY/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.508/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Shri N.A.L. Periyakarupan, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Circle – I, 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Cuddalore. Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Ajypp 5667 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 264Section 89(1)

…f the Act. According to the Ld. counsel, thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) found that the appeal is maintainable before him. However, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323, the CIT(Appeals) found that the assessee cannot make a new claim without filing a revised return. The CIT(Appeals) further found that since the claim of exemption 3 I.T.A. No.508/Mds/16 under Section 10(10C) of the Act was not claimed in the return filed, the same cannot be raised by way of petition under Section 154 of the Act. 3. Accordin…

ITO 1(1)-4, Mumbai vs. Golconde Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6254/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/6254/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-1(1)-4 M/S. Golconde Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, 5, Roshera Building, Room No.531 A/579 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Dinshaw Vaccha Road, Churchgate Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaccg 4199 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप ""या"ेप/Co/103/Mum/2016 ""या"ेप ""या"ेप Arising Out Of 6254/Mum/14, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 वष" M/S. Golconde Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)-4 Mumbai-20. Mumbai-20. (Cross Objector/ ""या"ेपक) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna-Dr Assessee By: Shri Nishith Khatri सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.08.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.30.07.2014 Of Cit(A)-1,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (A.O.) & The Assessee Have Filed Appeal/Cross Objections For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee- Company,Filed Its Return Of Income On 14.02.2013 Declaring Total At Rs.Nil.The Ao Complet - Ed Assessment,On 13.12.113,U/.S143(3) Of The Act,Determining Income Of The Assessee At Rs.35.34 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Shri Nishith KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna-DR
Section 254(1)Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 71Section 80G

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ जी जी जी” खंडपीठ जी Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/6254/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax Officer-1(1)-4 M/s. Golconde Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, 5, Roshera Building, Room…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…and closing investments. 28. However, he AO did not accept the claim on the ground that any claim for deduction can be made only by filing a revised return of income as held by the Supreme Court in M/s. Goetze India Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2006). 284 ITR 323. The AO also disallowed interest applying Rule 8D 25 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15 on the basis that assessee has interest free funds and borrowed funds and the assessee has investments yielding tax free income. 29. By the impugned order ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Exactly on the similar reasoning AO has made…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…and closing investments. 28. However, he AO did not accept the claim on the ground that any claim for deduction can be made only by filing a revised return of income as held by the Supreme Court in M/s. Goetze India Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2006). 284 ITR 323. The AO also disallowed interest applying Rule 8D 25 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15 on the basis that assessee has interest free funds and borrowed funds and the assessee has investments yielding tax free income. 29. By the impugned order ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Exactly on the similar reasoning AO has made…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 194/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…and closing investments. 28. However, he AO did not accept the claim on the ground that any claim for deduction can be made only by filing a revised return of income as held by the Supreme Court in M/s. Goetze India Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2006). 284 ITR 323. The AO also disallowed interest applying Rule 8D 25 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15 on the basis that assessee has interest free funds and borrowed funds and the assessee has investments yielding tax free income. 29. By the impugned order ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Exactly on the similar reasoning AO has made…

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7512/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…and closing investments. 28. However, he AO did not accept the claim on the ground that any claim for deduction can be made only by filing a revised return of income as held by the Supreme Court in M/s. Goetze India Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2006). 284 ITR 323. The AO also disallowed interest applying Rule 8D 25 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15 on the basis that assessee has interest free funds and borrowed funds and the assessee has investments yielding tax free income. 29. By the impugned order ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Exactly on the similar reasoning AO has made…

ACIT CC 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7408/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…and closing investments. 28. However, he AO did not accept the claim on the ground that any claim for deduction can be made only by filing a revised return of income as held by the Supreme Court in M/s. Goetze India Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2006). 284 ITR 323. The AO also disallowed interest applying Rule 8D 25 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15 on the basis that assessee has interest free funds and borrowed funds and the assessee has investments yielding tax free income. 29. By the impugned order ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Exactly on the similar reasoning AO has made…

Haldia Petrochemicals Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 12(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2114/KOL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

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

Section 115JSection 32

…e return - claim not made in original return nor made by way of a revised return but made in the course of assessment- AO and CIT(A) rejected the claim following the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (lndia) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182 : (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) on the ground that no revised return was filed for making such additional claim - Powers of the Tribunal to admit additional ground or claim are not affected - Facts are on record by way of letter of the assessee before the AO hence claim is admitted - As neither AO nor the CIT(A) has considered the issue on merits, the issue is set aside to…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Shyam Sunder Khemka, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5378/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Room No. Vs. Sh. Shyam Sunder Khemka, 409A, C.R. Building, I.P. E-292, Sarita Vihar, New Estate, New Delhi Delhi Gir/Pan :Aanpk9254H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Date Of Hearing 29.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 18/07/2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10, Raising Following Grounds: I. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing 100% Deduction U/S 80Ic Instead Of 25% By Considering Return Of Income Which Was Filed After Due Date U/S 139(5) Of The It Act? Ii. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Additional Evidence

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT, Circle-5(1), Room No. Vs. Sh. Shyam Sunder Khemka, 409A, C.R. Building, I.P. E-292, Sarita Vihar, New Estate, New Delhi Delhi GIR/PAN :AANPK9254H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr.DR Respondent by Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Date of hearing 29.06.2016 Date of pronouncement 29.07.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 18/07/2013 of learned Commiss…

Kanta Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1781/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 50Section 50CSection 54F

…not find anything wrong. Ld. CIT(A) denied the claim on the ground that no claim was made in the original return of income, and therefore, the same cannot be granted to the assessee in view of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd 284 ITR 323 (SC). 3.2. During the course of hearing before us, ld. Counsel submitted that it is a worth noting that these evidences have already been examined by the AO, and therefore, the benefit of claim should not be denied merely because the claim was omitted to be made in the return of income. It was further submitted that in any case, the appellate aut…

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, ACCOUTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER TATA Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 PAN: AAACT 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by Shri Dinesh Vyas, AR Respondent by Shri Alok Johri, DR Date of hearing 22-06-2016 Date of pronouncement 20-07-2016 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of I…

Smt. Maitreyee Das, Purba Medinipur vs. I.to WD - 1, Haldia

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 780/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.780/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.L.Bhowmick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dinabandhu Naskar, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No.780/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Maitreyee Das -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1, Purba Medinipur Haldia [PAN : AEFPD 0377 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri K.L.Bhowmick, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Dinabandhu Naskar, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 12.07.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 05.12.2012 of CIT(A)- XXXIII, Kolkata, relating to AY 2009-10. 2. Ground No.1…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Sona Steering Systems Ltd

ITA/160/2001HC Delhi13 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

…the testing and research facilities. As rightly pointed out by the ITAT, the power of the CIT (A) is parallel and is co-terminus power with the AO to examine the facts. In any event as explained in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the bar to considering a revised return in which a claim is made for the first time applies to the AO but not to the ITA Nos. 160/2001, 166/2002, 9/2003 and 15/2004 Page 7 of 11 appellate authority. On merits the Revenue is unable to dispute that the Assessee was otherwise entitled to the d…