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 366,470 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

ACIT, Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1734/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Quadir Hoseyn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan, CIT
Section 115Section 115WSection 37(2)

…loan was omitted to be considered for the purpose. The revised claim of the assessee can be considered only on a revised return, the Assessing Officer has not accepted the revised claim in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323. With regard to the original claim of deduction at ₹.9,17,03,880/-, after considering details furnished by the assessee and after verifying the accounts, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction made under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 23. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 24. We have conside…

ITO, Mysore vs. M/S Lab Land Bio Tech Pvt. Ltd., Mysore

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 879/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri. S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 10(1)Section 115Section 2Section 35

…rejected by the AO. In any case, as per the assessee nothing stopped the CIT (A) from entertaining this claim. Assessee pointed out to the CIT (A) that the limitations placed by the Hon’ble Apex Court through its judgment in Goetze (India) Ltd v. CIT [(2006) 284 ITR 323] was only on the AO and appellate authorities were free to consider such claims made by the assessee. Assessee also made submissions on merits, assailing the disallowance of depreciation and R & D expenditure. Assessee also put up a claim before the CIT (A) that profit as per the P & L account alone should be considered for computing tax u/s.115…

M/S A.K Electricals and Electronics, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 34(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1778/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Mathur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tanuj Niyogi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

…thereon 40,817.00 Add: surcharges 4,082.00 Add: Education Cess 898.00 45,797.00 Less: TDS 182,702.00 Refundable 136,905.00 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us stated that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) prohibits the AO from rectifying the mistake in the return of income filed by the assessee but appellate authorities can rectify the same. I find force in the argument of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that Goetz (India) Pvt. Ltd., supra is applicable to the AO and not to the appellate authorities. Accordingly, I direct the AO to take the corr…

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-21 vs. Shri Akshay Bharadwaj

ITA/958/2015HC Delhi15 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 1Section 10Section 14Section 80Section 80A

…27 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 25. + ITA 956/2015 THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 Appellant Through: Mr Dileep Shivpiiri, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel. ; versus SHRI AKSHAY BHARADWAJ Respondent Through WITH 26. + ITA 957/2015 THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 Appellant Through: Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel, versus SHRI AKSHAY BHARADWAJ Respondent Through AND ; ITA 958/2015 THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 Appellant Through: Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr Sa…

ITO (E) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Dr.A.V Baliga Charities, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid terms

ITA 3811/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3811/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito(Exemption)-1(2), Dr. A. V. Baliga Charities बनाम/ Room No. 501, 5Th Floor, 257, Welcome House, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. S. Bist ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Subramanian सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 01.12.2015 Date Of Hearing Date Of Order : 10.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 25.3.2015, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2010. 2. The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Maintainability In Law Of The Direction By The Ld. Cit(A) To The Assessing Officer (A.O.) To Allow The Assessee, After Due Verification, It’S Claim For Brought Forward ‘Losses’ For A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08, As Well As Carry Forward Of ‘Loss’ Computed For The Current Year.

For Appellant: Shri B. S. BistFor Respondent: Shri M. Subramanian
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)(ii)

…stoppel against law. This not be confused with the claim not made or omitted to be made by the assessee per its return (for the current year), and which, therefore, was never considered by the A.O. The decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), relied upon by the Revenue, is clearly distinguishable. The assessee in fact did not claim such set off in-as-much as there was, per its’ return, a deficiency. The difference between ‘loss’ and ‘deficiency’ has already been explained. Subject to our fore-going observations, the impugned order by the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed. I decide accordi…

Madhabi Nag, Bankura vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Asansol

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

ITA 512/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2008-2009

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

For Appellant: Shri R.N.Ram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitav Bhattacharjee, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 154

…return of income filed by him. The assessee had not filed the revised return of income claiming exemption of long term capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) and was of the view that the assessee cannot make a claim which is not supported by a revised return of income. He therefore held that the AO rightly dismissed the application of the assessee u/s 154 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the rival…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. E.I.H. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

ITA 2182/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, ld.CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…nd claim the same in the assessment proceedings by way of a letter dated 27.1.2006. We are aware at this juncture that any claim could be made only by filing a valid return as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). But the same judgement states in the last para that the said finding ITA Nos. 2182/Kol/06, 57, 1876 & 1846/Kol/07, 196 & 299/Kol/2010 DCIT,Cir-8, Kol Vs. M/s. E I H Ltd 48 is not applicable to appellate authorities more especially to tribunals. Hence respectfully following the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra) and in view of th…

Rashna Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4815/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4815/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) बिधम/ Mrs.Rashna C Patel, Income Tax Officer, 16(2)2, Block-A, Mayfair Garden, Matru Mandir, Vs. Little Gibbs Road, Tardeo, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400006 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Acwpp6393D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J D Mistry प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri Uday B Jakke सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :1.12.2015 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :9.12.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J D MistryFor Respondent: Shri Uday B Jakke

…benefit at the time of filing return of income, but claimed the same during the course of assessment proceedings by filing revised computation. The AO rejected the same by citing the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd (284 ITR 323) and the Ld CIT(A) did not adjudicate the said ground. At the time of hearing, the Ld A.R submitted that the assessee is making a claim, which she is legally entitled to. We find merit in the submissions of Ld A.R. Accordingly, we set aside this matter to the file of the AO with the direction to recompute the capital gains by considering the revi…

Fortune Equity Brokers (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 157/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.157/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ M/S. Intime Equities Ltd., The Dcit, Range-4(1), (Formerly Known As M/S. Mumbai Vs. Fortune Equity Brokers (I) Ltd., 2002, Naman Midtown, A Wing, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elephinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 2063L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :08.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :08.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: With This Appeal The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, Mumbai Dated 2.11.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 45,10,958/- U/S. 14A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar
Section 14A

…4A r.w. Rule 8D to Rs. 1,70,054/- as against Rs. 45,10,958/- disallowed in the original computation of income. This claim of the assessee was denied by AO who drew support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). 5. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 6. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not fetter the powers of the Appellate authority to consider a valid revised computation of income. 7. We have given a thoughtful conside…

Dr. Ashwin Balachand Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6293/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, D.R
Section 14ASection 54(1)Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.5329 & 6293/M/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dr. Ashwin Balchand Mehta, Joint Commissioner of Income 2nd Floor, Mani Mahal, Tax, Range – 11(2), 11/21 Mathew Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Opera House, M.K. Marg, Mumbai - 400004 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AACPM 8363J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Rakesh Ranjan, D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.07.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R Per Sanjay Ga…

Dr. Ashwin Balchand Mehta, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 11(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5329/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, D.R
Section 14ASection 54(1)Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.5329 & 6293/M/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dr. Ashwin Balchand Mehta, Joint Commissioner of Income 2nd Floor, Mani Mahal, Tax, Range – 11(2), 11/21 Mathew Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Opera House, M.K. Marg, Mumbai - 400004 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AACPM 8363J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Rakesh Ranjan, D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.07.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R Per Sanjay Ga…

Usha Girish Deshpande, Mumbai vs. DCIT 23(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4268/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4268/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) Usha Girish Deshpande, बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax 419-20 23(3), Vs. Swastik Disa Corporate Park, Mumbai. L B S Road, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400086. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 194ASection 24Section 37(1)Section 40

…and the Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. The claim of the assessee for allowing interest expenditure against the property income was not allowed by the tax authorities by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd (283 ITR 323). The Ld A.R submitted that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court does not impinge the power of the Tribunal and accordingly prayed that the assessing officer may be directed to examine the claim of the assessee u/s 24 of the Act against the house property income. 4. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, placed strong reliance on the order of L…

Mattel Toys (India) P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 6391/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainc.O. No.161/M/2012 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6519/M/2011) (Ay 2003-04) M/S. Mattel Toys (India) P Ltd, फनाभ/ Ito-6(3)(4), 4Th Floor, B Wing, Phoenix R.No.522, 5 Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. House, 462, Senapati Bapat Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-13. Mumbai-20. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccm2563P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) फनाभ/ Ito-6(3)(4), M/S. Mattel Toys (India) P R.No.522, 5 Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd, 4Th Floor, B Wing, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Phoenix House, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-13. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccm2563P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, PranithFor Respondent: Shir N.K. Chand, CIT and Shri
Section 43B

…ds and mentioned that Ground nos. 1 to 7 stand either covered (Ground no.1 and 7) or not pressed (Ground no.6) or required to be remanded for fresh adjudication considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 an also the order of the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for the A Y 2002-03. On hearing both the parties, we approve the Ld AR‟s arguments. 4. Ground no.1 relates to the disallowance u/s 43B of the Act in respect of contribution to PF amounting to Rs. 4,36,058/-. In this regard, Ld AR briefly narrated the facts and relied on the Tribunal‟s…

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 840/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…in the earlier assessment year and paid during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and the tax free interest earned of Rs. 2,55,233/- by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd Vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the learned CIT(A) who vide order dated 28th December, 2012 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the assesee is before us with the present appeal. 4. We shall now take up the appeal ground-wise. The first ground is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 5. The second ground of appeal relates…

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 1432/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…in the earlier assessment year and paid during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and the tax free interest earned of Rs. 2,55,233/- by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd Vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the learned CIT(A) who vide order dated 28th December, 2012 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the assesee is before us with the present appeal. 4. We shall now take up the appeal ground-wise. The first ground is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 5. The second ground of appeal relates…

Ca India Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8376/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2015AY 2004-05
For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal ,Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT
Section 254(1)Section 271

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, ‘के’ खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “K” BENCH सव"ी ए. डी.जैन, "याियक सद"य , एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh. A.D. Jain,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.8376/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05 वष" CA (India) Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ACIT – 10(1) Ground Floor, Vibgyor Tower Aayakar Bhavan Plot-C-62, G-Block,BKC Vs Mumbai. Bandra (E)Mumbai-400 051. PAN: AAACC 4971 D आयक…

ACIT Cir 10(1), Mumbai vs. Ca (India) Technologies P. Ltd ( Formerly Knowan As C.A. Computer Associates (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8106/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2015AY 2004-05
For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal ,Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT
Section 254(1)Section 271

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, ‘के’ खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “K” BENCH सव"ी ए. डी.जैन, "याियक सद"य , एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh. A.D. Jain,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.8376/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05 वष" CA (India) Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ACIT – 10(1) Ground Floor, Vibgyor Tower Aayakar Bhavan Plot-C-62, G-Block,BKC Vs Mumbai. Bandra (E)Mumbai-400 051. PAN: AAACC 4971 D आयक…

Ca (India) Technologies P Ltd`, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8218/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2015AY 2006-07
For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal ,Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT
Section 254(1)Section 271

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, ‘के’ खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “K” BENCH सव"ी ए. डी.जैन, "याियक सद"य , एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh. A.D. Jain,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.8376/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05 वष" CA (India) Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ACIT – 10(1) Ground Floor, Vibgyor Tower Aayakar Bhavan Plot-C-62, G-Block,BKC Vs Mumbai. Bandra (E)Mumbai-400 051. PAN: AAACC 4971 D आयक…

D.C.I.T Cir - VI, Kolkata. vs. M/S J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 303/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Kumar, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Counsel and Shri Saurabh Bagaria, Advocate
Section 115JSection 35Section 40A

…uch a claim was not made in the return of income nor did the Assessee file a revised return of income making such a claim, the AO ought not to have allowed the claim in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323(SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.303&304/Kol/2013 – M/s. JK Tyre & Industries Ltd. A./Y.2005-06 7 Court held that the AO cannot entertain a claim by the Assessee without filing a revised return of income making such a claim. 5. The grievance projected in the grounds of appeal by the Revenue in ITA No. 304/Kol/13 which is the appeal by the…

Pr. Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs. E-Funds International India Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/607/2015HC Delhi06 Oct 2015
Section 10ASection 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

…a loss determined on account of an incorrect adoption of a receipt was corrected and as a result, the Assessee became entitled to the deduction. It was held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) did not debar the claim made by the Assessee. 15. As far as the above issue is concerned, it was submitted by Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, that there was no option for the Assessee but to file a revised return within the time stipulated under Section 139(5) of the Act. He submitted that in Goetze…