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

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

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/608/2015HC 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…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…sion, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mitesh Impex (2014) – 270 ITR 66 (Guj.) after discussing the issue in detail in view of several decisions including decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Goetz (India) vs. CIT (2006) – 284 ITR 323 (S.C), ITO vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd. (2010) – 320 ITR 79 (S.C), NTPC Ltd. vs.CIT (1998)- 229 ITR 383 (S.C) as well as its own decision in the case of CIT vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. (1985) – 151 ITR 499 (Guj.) (FB) has been pleased to hold that merely because a ground has not been raised though it could have been raised in…

M/S Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT-III(DR)
Section 10BSection 250

…14. The assessee also pointed out that it is only before the AO that the assessee cannot make a claim, which is not supported by a revised return of income in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and that the said prohibition does not extend to making a claim before the appellate authorities under Act. For the above proposition, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Prithvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. [TS-463-HC-2012(BOM)]. 15. The CIT(Appeals), however, was of the view that…

M/S Kewal Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 628/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 254

…ning exempt income u/s. 14A of the Act of a sum of Rs.83,639. 3. The Assessing Officer did not consider the revised computation of total income filed by the assessee and doing so, followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer cannot consider any claim in the absence of a valid revised return filed by the assessee. 4. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee pointed out the restriction imposed in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. (supra) was applicable only to the Assessing Officer and not…

Padma Vashi Shewaramani, Chennai vs. ADIT, Chennai

In the result, the impugned is set aside and the appeal of the

ITA 2281/CHNY/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2015AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Vikas Awasthyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2281/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. Padma Vashi Shewaramani, The Assistant Director Of No.73, Janki Bhawan, V. Income Tax, Sardar Patel Road, International Taxation, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aayps 4687 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Das Gupta, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 50

…m capital loss against short term capital gain. The A.O. has failed to consider the revised computation. In support of his submission, the Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323). On the third issue 5 I.T.A. No.2281/Mds/14 of treating rental income from letting out of property as “business income”, the Ld. A.R. submitted that earlier, the assessee has been offering rental income under the head “income from business”. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Shambhu Investment…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Kumar Enterprises, Bangalore

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 435/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P.Georgeincome-Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Kumar Enterprises, No.25, 9Th Cross, Kp West, Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Dr.K.Shankar Prasad, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…hand, learned DR supported the action of the Assessing Officer and submitted that no claim u/s 80HHC was made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., v. CIT (284 ITR 323). 4. After hearing both the sides, we find force in the submission of the assessee. Before the Assessing Officer, the claim u/s 80HHC was not made by the assessee. Therefore, the submission of the assessee that no other additions should be made, was not considered by the Assessing Officer. Deduction u/s 80HHC has been claimed by the assessee befo…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sobha Developers Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1410/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I (DR)For Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.A
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1410/Bang/ 2013 Assessment year : 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Sobha Developers, Income Tax, ‘Sobha’, Central Circle 2(2), Sarjapur-Marathalli ORR, Bangalore. Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore. PAN : AABCS 7723E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I (DR) Respondent by : Shri V. Srinivasan, C.A. Date of hearing : 26.11.2014 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member This appeal b…

M/S Influence vs. Commr. of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs

ITA - 261 / 2002HC Delhi18 Sept 2014
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 80Section 80H

…, 1995. 6. The aforesaid view has found favour with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. They have relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 7. A similar controversy had arisen before the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 682 (Delhi), wherein judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) was quoted. In Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra), decision in Goetze (Indi…

M/S Influence vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs

ITA/261/2002HC Delhi18 Sept 2014
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 80Section 80H

…, 1995. 6. The aforesaid view has found favour with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. They have relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 7. A similar controversy had arisen before the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 682 (Delhi), wherein judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 42 (Delhi) was quoted. In Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra), decision in Goetze (Indi…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sigma Constructions

ITTA/502/2013HC Telangana24 Oct 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Sri S.Venkat Reddy, (PAN ALAPS4009A)

ITTA/501/2013HC Telangana24 Oct 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/214/2013HC Delhi02 Sept 2013
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 254Section 73

…M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL) Revenue in this appeal, which pertains to assessment year 2001- 02, rely upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The contention is that the respondent-assessee should be denied deduction under Section 10 (35)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act) and claim of business loss of Rs.85,18,854/- should be rejected as no revised return was filed under Section 139(5) of the Act. 2013:DHC:4336-DB ITA 214 of 2013…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Konduru Rupa

ITTA/315/2006HC Telangana02 Feb 2012

CIT vs. Aspentech India Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1233 / 2011HC Delhi28 Nov 2011
Section 260ASection 43B

…ITA 1233/2011 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA NO.1233/2011 % Date of Decision : 28th November, 2011. CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, sr. standing counsel with Ms. Anshul Sharma, Adv. versus ASPENTECH INDIA PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Infra Soft Technologies Ltd

ITA - 708 / 2008HC Delhi21 Oct 2010
Section 10ASection 5Section 80H

…ITA No. 708 of 2008 Page 1 of 12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 708 of 2008 % Decision Delivered On: 21st October, 2010. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. VERSUS INFRA SOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha, Akansha Aggarwal and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Infra Soft Technologies Ltd

ITA/708/2008HC Delhi21 Oct 2010
Section 10ASection 5Section 80H

…ITA No. 708 of 2008 Page 1 of 12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 708 of 2008 % Decision Delivered On: 21st October, 2010. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. VERSUS INFRA SOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha, Akansha Aggarwal and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT…

ITC vs. Natraj Statinary Productiion P Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1012 / 2007HC Delhi21 Nov 2008
For Appellant: Ms Rashmi ChopraFor Respondent: Mr Anil Sharma
Section 143Section 260ASection 80

…B ITA Nos. 1009 & 1012 of 2007 Page 14 of 15 was not required to file a revised return since it had not made any ‘new claim’ and hence, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Ltd v. CIT : (2006) 284 ITR 323 was not applicable. 11. In these circumstances, the Tribunal, in our view, has correctly held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB (3)(i), in regard to other industrial undertakings, the provision of which are pari- materia with the provisions of Section 80-IA (2)(iv) as obtaining in the initial year. The Tribuna…

CIT vs. Natraj Stationery Products P.Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1009 / 2007HC Delhi21 Nov 2008
For Appellant: Ms Rashmi ChopraFor Respondent: Mr Anil Sharma
Section 143Section 260ASection 80

…B ITA Nos. 1009 & 1012 of 2007 Page 14 of 15 was not required to file a revised return since it had not made any ‘new claim’ and hence, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Ltd v. CIT : (2006) 284 ITR 323 was not applicable. 11. In these circumstances, the Tribunal, in our view, has correctly held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB (3)(i), in regard to other industrial undertakings, the provision of which are pari- materia with the provisions of Section 80-IA (2)(iv) as obtaining in the initial year. The Tribuna…

Income Tax-V vs. Products (P) Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/1012/2007HC Delhi21 Nov 2008
For Appellant: Ms Rashmi ChopraFor Respondent: Mr Anil Sharma
Section 143Section 260ASection 80

…B ITA Nos. 1009 & 1012 of 2007 Page 14 of 15 was not required to file a revised return since it had not made any ‘new claim’ and hence, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Ltd v. CIT : (2006) 284 ITR 323 was not applicable. 11. In these circumstances, the Tribunal, in our view, has correctly held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB (3)(i), in regard to other industrial undertakings, the provision of which are pari- materia with the provisions of Section 80-IA (2)(iv) as obtaining in the initial year. The Tribuna…

Income Tax-V vs. Products (P) Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/1009/2007HC Delhi21 Nov 2008
For Appellant: Ms Rashmi ChopraFor Respondent: Mr Anil Sharma
Section 143Section 260ASection 80

…B ITA Nos. 1009 & 1012 of 2007 Page 14 of 15 was not required to file a revised return since it had not made any ‘new claim’ and hence, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetz (India) Ltd v. CIT : (2006) 284 ITR 323 was not applicable. 11. In these circumstances, the Tribunal, in our view, has correctly held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB (3)(i), in regard to other industrial undertakings, the provision of which are pari- materia with the provisions of Section 80-IA (2)(iv) as obtaining in the initial year. The Tribuna…