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)

Pattukottai Agricultural Producers Co-Op Marketing Society Limited, Pattukkottai vs. ACIT, Thanjavur

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

ITA 849/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.849, 850, 851, 852 & 853/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

Section 2(31)Section 80P(2)(a)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.849, 850, 851, 852 & 853/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Pattukottai Agricultural The Assistant Commissioner of Producers Co-op. Marketing v. Income Tax, Society Limited, Circle – 1, Muthupettai Road, Income Tax Office, Pattukottai – 641 601. Thanjavur – 631 006. PAN : AAAAP 3186 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellan…

ACIT, Circle - 32, Kolkata vs. M/S. W.B. State Co-Op Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and assessee are allowed for statistical purpose as stated above

ITA 1641/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…ed for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had not entertained this additional ground of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CIT reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). Accordingly, the claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) was denied for the assessment year 2007-08. For the assessment year 2008-09, the assesee made a similar claim before the ld.AO, who declined to accept the same. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. During the course of hearing before us, t…

ITO 11(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Dr. Dhruman Desai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 4066/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DesaiFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 72Section 73Section 74Section 74A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) I.T.A. NO. 4066/MUM/2013 (Assessment Year 2009-2010) ITO – 11(2)(2), Vs. Dr. Dhruman Desai Mumbai 1011-1012, May Fair Gardens, Azad Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) PAN No.AAEPD2872P Assessee by : Shri Jayesh Desai Department by : Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 01.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2016 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, AM :- The appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 12-03-2013 passed by Ld CIT(A)-3, Mumbai and it rel…

DCIT, Circle -5 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S Kesoram Industries Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 930/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas,CIT, ld.DR &

Section 143(3)Section 147

…AO again rejected the petitions on the ground that no claim was made by the assessee by way of revised ITA Nos.930,931 & 782/Kol/2012- 10 A-AM M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd return and by the principle of Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), the said petition cannot be entertained. On subsequent appeal before Learned CIT(A) in Appeal No. 04/V/CIR-5/07-08, the additional depreciation was allowed by the Learned CIT(A). It is also seen from the records that the appeal effect has been given by the AO in restating the depreciation in Asst Year 2004-05 and subsequent appeals before t…

The Commissioner of Income tax III vs. Biraj Kavar Galada

ITTA/98/2010HC Telangana29 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Vishal Sushilkumar Goenka, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10

ITA 4967/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainvishal Sushilkumar Goenka, Plot No.6 F11/12, Wicel, Opp. Seepz, Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 Pan: Aabpg 5548C ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal

Section 143

…t was not for the purpose of earning interest income from Savings Bank account and postal monthly income scheme as disclosed in (original) return of income. It is settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v/s CIT (284 ITR 323) that assessing authority cannot entertain any claim otherwise than by way of revised return. In the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., the Ld.CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal/ claim but Hon'ble ITAT had allowed the appeal of the department the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) . The Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the decision of , Hon’ble ITAT allo…

Dct RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Kulgam Holdings P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3498/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Joginder Singhthe D.C.I.T, 8(2), Room No.216-A, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400020 ... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri K.ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…n of income. 3. On the facts and interest he circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessed income cannot be less than the retuned income, in view of the Apex Court’s decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd. [284 ITR 323].” 3. The assessee before us is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter-alia, engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities and other financial activities. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee company had earned tax free dividend income…

Nalin Jagdishkumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

ITA 5793/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 23Section 260

…of income. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept this contention of the assessee holding that the assessee should have revised the return of income filed by him in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs CIT 284 ITR 323. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. 42. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been submitted before the lower authorities. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the fundamental principle of taxation required the AO to compute the real income and not to take benefit of assessee’s ignorance or mistake. The Ld.…

JCIT (OSD) CC 39, Mumbai vs. Nalin J Gupta, Mumbai

ITA 5419/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 23Section 260

…of income. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept this contention of the assessee holding that the assessee should have revised the return of income filed by him in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs CIT 284 ITR 323. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. 42. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been submitted before the lower authorities. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the fundamental principle of taxation required the AO to compute the real income and not to take benefit of assessee’s ignorance or mistake. The Ld.…

JCIT (OSD) CC 39, Mumbai vs. Nalin J Gupta, Mumbai

ITA 5413/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 23Section 260

…of income. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept this contention of the assessee holding that the assessee should have revised the return of income filed by him in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs CIT 284 ITR 323. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. 42. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been submitted before the lower authorities. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the fundamental principle of taxation required the AO to compute the real income and not to take benefit of assessee’s ignorance or mistake. The Ld.…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

ITTA/559/2015HC Telangana16 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Delhi State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 518/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri O.P. Kant, Am Ita No. 518/Del./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. S.C.GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT, DR

Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…e total NP. The AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that filing time for revised return has expired uls 139(5) and the assessee was not entitled to make a fresh claim or deduction and the AO relied on the case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) [2006]. We find that the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that AO 4 The Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd. was not justified to disallow the statutory and genuine claim of the assessee on technical grounds. He submitted that since new provisions were introduced for bad and doubtful debts inrespect of Cooperative…