Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

32 SOT 101Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#1933 most cited

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

Provisions related to Section 14A, particularly its sub-sections (2) and (3), cannot be applied to clause (f) of the Explanation to Section 115JA for computing book profit. Amounts disallowed under Section 14A cannot be added to arrive at book profit under Section 115JB.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT · Section 115JB · Section 14A · Section 115JA · book profit · minimum alternate tax · clause (f) of Explanation to Section 115JA · disallowance under Section 14A

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 92CA(3)Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 10

Issues it is cited on

section 14(2)section 14a(3)goodwill arising on amalgamationsection 14a(1)section 2(19aa)section 10(33)section 9(1)(ii)minimum alternate taxsection 43(6)(c)section 115jb(2)resulting companysection 115ja

Judgments citing Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Coal India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

…4A are restricted to computation of income under normal, provisions of the Act which cannot be extended to the computation of income u/s 115JB of the Act. The ld. AR relied upon the decisions of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Goetze (India) ltd vs CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 and ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No.354/Ahd/2012. The issue is squarely covered in the favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we partly allow ground no.2(α) of the assessee as regards the addition to book profit made u/s 115JB of the Act. 2.7 In light of very clear findings of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case…

M/S Coal India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata

ITA 1407/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 1Section 115JSection 250

…4A are restricted to computation of income under normal, provisions of the Act which cannot be extended to the computation of income u/s 115JB of the Act. The ld. AR relied upon the decisions of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Goetze (India) ltd vs CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 and ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No.354/Ahd/2012. The issue is squarely covered in the favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we partly allow ground no.2(α) of the assessee as regards the addition to book profit made u/s 115JB of the Act. 2.7 In light of very clear findings of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case…

DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Coal India Limited, Kolkata

ITA 623/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 250

…4A are restricted to computation of income under normal, provisions of the Act which cannot be extended to the computation of income u/s 115JB of the Act. The ld. AR relied upon the decisions of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Goetze (India) ltd vs CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 and ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No.354/Ahd/2012. The issue is squarely covered in the favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we partly allow ground no.2(α) of the assessee as regards the addition to book profit made u/s 115JB of the Act. 2.7 In light of very clear findings of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case…

DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Coal India Limited, Kolkata

ITA 622/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

…4A are restricted to computation of income under normal, provisions of the Act which cannot be extended to the computation of income u/s 115JB of the Act. The ld. AR relied upon the decisions of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Goetze (India) ltd vs CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 and ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No.354/Ahd/2012. The issue is squarely covered in the favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we partly allow ground no.2(α) of the assessee as regards the addition to book profit made u/s 115JB of the Act. 2.7 In light of very clear findings of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case…

Coal India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

ITA 467/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

…4A are restricted to computation of income under normal, provisions of the Act which cannot be extended to the computation of income u/s 115JB of the Act. The ld. AR relied upon the decisions of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Goetze (India) ltd vs CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 and ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No.354/Ahd/2012. The issue is squarely covered in the favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we partly allow ground no.2(α) of the assessee as regards the addition to book profit made u/s 115JB of the Act. 2.7 In light of very clear findings of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case…

Assistant Commissioner, Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5250/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Chellamani NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 36

…ther on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387/- under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v/s. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Dei), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on completely distinguishable set of facts, peculiar to the said case?" The Hon'ble High Court held that: 4 So far as Question…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 303/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387/ under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on completely distinguishable set of facts, peculiar to the said case?” ...... 4. So far as question (b) is concerned, the imp…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 302/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387/ under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on completely distinguishable set of facts, peculiar to the said case?” ...... 4. So far as question (b) is concerned, the imp…

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 199/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387/ under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on completely distinguishable set of facts, peculiar to the said case?” ...... 4. So far as question (b) is concerned, the imp…

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 198/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387/ under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on completely distinguishable set of facts, peculiar to the said case?” ...... 4. So far as question (b) is concerned, the imp…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 293/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ther on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387/- under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze I.T.A Nos. 166/Ahd/22 & 231/Ahd/24 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21 Page No 20 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. . vs. DCIT (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on c…

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 231/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ther on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387/- under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze I.T.A Nos. 166/Ahd/22 & 231/Ahd/24 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21 Page No 20 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. . vs. DCIT (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on c…

The Jt.CIT, (OSD)Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 223/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ther on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387/- under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze I.T.A Nos. 166/Ahd/22 & 231/Ahd/24 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21 Page No 20 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. . vs. DCIT (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on c…

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 166/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ther on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387/- under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze I.T.A Nos. 166/Ahd/22 & 231/Ahd/24 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21 Page No 20 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. . vs. DCIT (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on c…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sp Port Maintenance Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3895/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Dcit 3(3)1 Vs. Sp Port Maintenance Private Room No. 522, Aaykar Bhavan, M. Limited K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji 400 020. Centre Mumbai, Colaba S.O, Pan: Aaxcs6219B Mumbai – 400 005. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

…her on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387/- under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v/s. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on completely distinguishable set of facts, peculiar to the said case?” 3. So far as Question (a) is concerned, we find that t…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Barindra Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2606/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant , Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 48

…her on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 78,84,387/ under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v/s. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on completely distinguishable set of facts, peculiar to the said case?” 3 So far as Question (a) is concerned, we find that th…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Barindra Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 2605/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant , Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 48

…her on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 78,84,387/ under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v/s. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on completely distinguishable set of facts, peculiar to the said case?” 3 So far as Question (a) is concerned, we find that th…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent by : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 270A

…ther on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387/- under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on completely distinguishable set of facts, peculiar to the said case?” …... 4. So far as question (b) is concerned, the impug…

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 139/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent by : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 270A

…ther on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387/- under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on completely distinguishable set of facts, peculiar to the said case?” …... 4. So far as question (b) is concerned, the impug…

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Cirecle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 318/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. & Shri Jimi Patel , A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…ther on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,84,387/- under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB relying upon the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.), which has been followed by ITAT, Mumbai in the cases referred to in para 5 of the impugned order without appreciating that the above decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. was rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench on completely distinguishable set of facts, peculiar to the said case?” …... 4. So far as question (b) is concerned, the impug…