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

Grabal Alok Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1776/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri M.P.LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Mukundraj Chate
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 92B

…ee. However the AO refused to acknowledge the claim of the assessee on the ground that the claim was made otherwise than by filing a revised return of income. The AO observed that as per decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) such claim of the assessee cannot be entertained. Accordingly the claim made by the assessee was rejected. 23. By the impugned order CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee. 24. We have considered rival contentions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs CIT (229 ITR 383) (copy is enclosed at PB Page N…

D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata. vs. M/S Uco Bank, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and that of Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 911/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 212Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…rporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 88 CTR (SC) 66 : (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 : (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC) relied on; Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182 : (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) distinguished. Appeal (Tribunal)—Additional ground—Claim for deduction not claimed in the return—Tribunal had power to allow deduction for expenditure to assessee to which it was otherwise entitled even though no claim was made by assessee in the return. ITA No.585 & 911/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10 UCO Bank v. DCIT Cir-6, Kol. Page 15 Tribunal ha…

Uco Bank, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and that of Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 585/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 212Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…rporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 88 CTR (SC) 66 : (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 : (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC) relied on; Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182 : (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) distinguished. Appeal (Tribunal)—Additional ground—Claim for deduction not claimed in the return—Tribunal had power to allow deduction for expenditure to assessee to which it was otherwise entitled even though no claim was made by assessee in the return. ITA No.585 & 911/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10 UCO Bank v. DCIT Cir-6, Kol. Page 15 Tribunal ha…

Sundial Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7562/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2012 & M/S Sundial Investments Pvt. बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd, Income Tax-Circle 3(3), Vs. 127 Jolly Maker Chambers, Mumbai. Nariman Points, Mumbai-400021 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacs9845C अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Anuj Kishnadwalla प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :30.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A) Dated 15.5.2012 & 21.10.2013 & They Pertain To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical / Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Succeeding Paragraphs.

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e said interest was incurred for loan availed and utilised for acquisition of movable property and claimed the same against the house property income. However, the AO relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323(SC) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that mere filing of the revised statement of income was not sufficient and the same was not filed by way of revised return and therefore not acceptable. Finally, the AO after considering the submissions of the assessee from time to time framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide Order dat…

Sundial Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5674/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2012 & M/S Sundial Investments Pvt. बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd, Income Tax-Circle 3(3), Vs. 127 Jolly Maker Chambers, Mumbai. Nariman Points, Mumbai-400021 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacs9845C अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Anuj Kishnadwalla प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :30.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A) Dated 15.5.2012 & 21.10.2013 & They Pertain To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical / Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Succeeding Paragraphs.

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e said interest was incurred for loan availed and utilised for acquisition of movable property and claimed the same against the house property income. However, the AO relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323(SC) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that mere filing of the revised statement of income was not sufficient and the same was not filed by way of revised return and therefore not acceptable. Finally, the AO after considering the submissions of the assessee from time to time framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide Order dat…

ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Pravin B. Bhandarkar, Mumbai

ITA 6672/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

Section 143(3)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई "यायपीठ "यायपीठ ‘सी’, मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई मुंबई । मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. ACIT, CC-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ACNPN 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. AND आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.…

ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Prakash B Bhandarkar, Mumbai

ITA 6671/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

Section 143(3)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई "यायपीठ "यायपीठ ‘सी’, मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई मुंबई । मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. ACIT, CC-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ACNPN 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. AND आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Pandoo P. Naig, Mumbai

ITA 7364/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

Section 143(3)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई "यायपीठ "यायपीठ ‘सी’, मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई मुंबई । मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. ACIT, CC-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ACNPN 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. AND आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.…

Pandurang Naig, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

ITA 7089/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

Section 143(3)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई "यायपीठ "यायपीठ ‘सी’, मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई मुंबई । मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. ACIT, CC-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ACNPN 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. AND आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Pragathi Group, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the department is dismissed

ITA 1135/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V. Shridar, CA
Section 143(3)

…te the income which will result in the income being computed at less than the returned income. The object of the appellate proceedings is to determine the correct tax liability of the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) has held that the claim made by an assessee otherwise through a Page 10 of 12 return/revised return cannot be entertained by the AO, but such fetters will not apply to appellate authorities. The CIT(A) ought to grant deductions, if claimed by the assessee for the first time in appeal, if it is otherwise allowable in law, notwithstanding the…

I.T.O WD - 35(1), Kolkata. vs. M/S Plastic Moulders International., Assam

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

ITA 333/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kr Kureel, JCIT, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…counts at any stage. (8) The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the claim of Deduction u/s 80IE at the assessment stage in a new one and it is totally contradictory to the Hon'ble Apex Court Decision in the case of M/s. Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 2 Assessment Year 2009-10 M/s. Plastic Moulders International (9) Hence it is prayed that the order of the Ld CIT(A) be cancelled and the Assessment order u/s 143(3) be upheld. (10) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or abrogate any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Ground no’s 1 to 8 raised against the order of CIT-A…

Valuable Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 5981/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anu Krishna Aggarwal
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 43BSection 44ASection 8O

…essment proceedings, assessee had claimed deduction under section 80G on account of donation of Rs.35.00 lacs made to Valuable Life Foundation. The Assessing Officer relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323(SC) and rejected the plea since it was not made by way of any return of income. The CIT(A) has also denied the claim of the assessee for the reasons advanced by the Assessing Officer. 9. Before us, Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the judgment of the Hon'ble (Assessment Year : 2010-11…

Dharam Pal Jain L/H Ajay Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and as the appeal of the assessee has been disposed off by this order the stay petition No

ITA 1284/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishis.A.No.175/Del/2016 Dharam Pal Jain Ito, L/H Ajay Jain, Ward-35(5), (Old W-20(2), Vs. 189/8, Punja Sharif, Prem Gali, New Delhi Kashmere Gate, New Delhi Pan:Aaepj6163F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dharam Pal Jain Ito, L/H Ajay Jain, Ward-35(5), (Old W-20(2), Vs. 189/8, Punja Sharif, Prem Gali, New Delhi Kashmere Gate, New Delhi Pan:Aaepj6163F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Repudamen Thakur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mani, Sr. DR
Section 116Section 119Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.A.No.175/Del/2016 Dharam Pal Jain ITO, L/H Ajay Jain, Ward-35(5), (Old W-20(2), Vs. 189/8, Punja Sharif, Prem Gali, New Delhi Kashmere Gate, New Delhi PAN:AAEPJ6163F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dharam Pal Jain ITO, L/H Ajay Jain, Ward-35(5), (Old W-20(2), Vs. 189/8, Punja Sharif, Prem Gali, New Delhi Kashmere Gate, New Delhi PAN:AAEPJ6163F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Repudamen Thakur, CA Revenue by: Sh. Ravinder Mani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/05/2016 Date…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Prem Lakhotia, New Delhi

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

ITA 1532/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H S Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Alok Periwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sharvan Gotru, Sr DR
Section 139(5)Section 43(5)

…siness loss and then short-term capital gain should be adjusted against it. Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of CIT vs. NASA Finlease Pvt. Ltd. 358 ITR 305. Ld. CIT(A) further discussed the decision relied upon by the AO in case of Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Ld. DR stated that the assessee has incurred losses in the F & O business and assessee as well as AO has not brought any fact on record how the transactions are entered into on recognised stock exchange. The case law relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) deals with the national…

Agarwal Metals & Alloys, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 14(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8953/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 143(2)Section 234CSection 234DSection 69CSection 80I

…for deduction of the same u/s 43B of the Act. Since the claim was made without filing revised return of income, the AO as well as the Ld CIT(A) rejected the claim, by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). 24. We heard the parties on this issue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above said case, has held that the decision rendered by it does not impinge upon the powers of the Tribunal to consider and admit additional ground. Further, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt Ltd (349…

Manoj Kumar Pawankumar Kedia, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7100/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoj Kumar Pawan Kumar Dcit-4(1), Kedia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 2B, Jai Hind Estate, 4Th Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Block No.4, Dr. A.M. Road, Bhuleswar (W) Mumbai-400002 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Accpk5701C

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…unt of Rs.12 lacs was claimed in the return of income in AY 2010-11, as allowable u/s 37 of the Act. This contention of the assessee was not accepted by the AO in view of The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that payment of Rs.12 lakhs be allowed u/s 37 of the Act was not accepted and rejected on the ground that the assessee has not filed revised return to claim the same. 3.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its stand that the claim of the assessee was valid the…

Nirmal Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 1285/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Repudaman, CA
Section 116Section 119Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No: 1285/Del/2016 AY : - 2011-12 Nirmal Kumar Jain, vs. Income Tax Officer 195/2, Punja Sharif, Prem Gali Ward 35(5), [Old W-20(2)] Kashmere Gate, Delhi – 110 006 New Delhi PAN AAEPJ6164C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Repudaman, CA Deptt. by : Shri Sharvan Gotru, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 5.4. 2016 Date of pronouncement :2.6.2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the…

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. Add.CIT, Range-6, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1199/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Barun Kumar Ghosh & Shri Piyush Dey, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…s of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in entertaining and allowing the fresh claim of deduction u/s.80G in respect of donations of Rs.7,38,900/- made by the assessee relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. -vs- CIT 284 ITR 323. “ 44. The Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.7,38,9001- holding that the same was not claimed in the income tax return u/s 80G and 35AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by observing as follows:- "The assessee included a sum of Rs.7,38,900/- paid as donation under the head 'other expenditures '. The assessee bank did not clam deduction u/s…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 348/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…as “Advance written off” during the course of assessment proceedings. However, since the amount was not claimed in the return of income, the AO, by applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CIT [2006] (284 ITR 323), rejected the claim of the assessee. The assessee, on the other hand, furnished a detailed submission contending that it is entitled to the deduction of the said amount in the assessment year under appeal. The assessee contended that the AO did not dispute the genuineness of the claim. However, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex court in th…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…as “Advance written off” during the course of assessment proceedings. However, since the amount was not claimed in the return of income, the AO, by applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CIT [2006] (284 ITR 323), rejected the claim of the assessee. The assessee, on the other hand, furnished a detailed submission contending that it is entitled to the deduction of the said amount in the assessment year under appeal. The assessee contended that the AO did not dispute the genuineness of the claim. However, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex court in th…