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

Tata Metaliks Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 788/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 115JSection 43B

…hich could not be termed as expenses actually incurred by the assessee in relation to the exempt dividend income. Reliance in this regard was placed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Goetze India Limited reported in 32 SOT 101, wherein it was held that the provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 14A could not be imported into clause (f) of Explanation (1) to section 115JA. 26. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As agreed by the ld. representatives of both the sides, this issue in…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Metaliks Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1143/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 115JSection 43B

…hich could not be termed as expenses actually incurred by the assessee in relation to the exempt dividend income. Reliance in this regard was placed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Goetze India Limited reported in 32 SOT 101, wherein it was held that the provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 14A could not be imported into clause (f) of Explanation (1) to section 115JA. 26. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As agreed by the ld. representatives of both the sides, this issue in…

Autoline Industries Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2306/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune15 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal. & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14A

…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/- (f) 1 under clause of Explanation 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 5 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 answered the above question…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ausom Enterprise Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1520/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)

…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?” ……. 4 So far as Question (b) is concerned, the impugne…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ausom Enterprise Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1519/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)

…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?” ……. 4 So far as Question (b) is concerned, the impugne…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Harsha Engineers Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1853/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1853/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit,Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Harsha Engineers Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Sarkhej Bhavla Road Changodar, Ahmedabad 382 213 Pan : Aaaach 4828 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Tushar H. Hemani, Ar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar H. Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

…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?” ……. 4 So far as Question (b) is concerned, the impugne…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ausom Enterprise Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 857/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 857/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)

…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?” ……. 4 So far as Question (b) is concerned, the impugne…

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 805/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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?” ……. 4 So far as Question (b) is concerned, the impugne…

Gujarat Flurochemicals Limited., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2744/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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?” ……. 4 So far as Question (b) is concerned, the impugne…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co, . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6055/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar with MsFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…- has been upheld for disallowance under section 14A by the CIT(A), he has erred in directing to not add any amount in the computation of book profit under section 115JB by relying on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (32 SOT 101), the facts and context of which are different from the present case. 3. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the decision of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the AO restored. 3. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that all the grounds of appeal raised by…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 557/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhacit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, M.K. Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -2(1) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Acit -2(1) Ltd. Neville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Pan:Aaact2328K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar with MsFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)

…- has been upheld for disallowance under section 14A by the CIT(A), he has erred in directing to not add any amount in the computation of book profit under section 115JB by relying on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (32 SOT 101), the facts and context of which are different from the present case. 3. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the decision of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the AO restored. 3. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that all the grounds of appeal raised by…

DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Enam Shares and Securites P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 154/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 1Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…al, Mumbai Bench in the case of Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd Vis Add!. CIT in [TA Nos. 69 and 701Mum12009 (AY- 2005-06 and 2006-07) and Tribunal vide order dated 5.4.2013 after following the decision of Delhi Bench of Tribunal in Goetze (India) Ltd (32 SOT 101) (Del) and the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Mis Bengal Finance and Investment P. Ltd. in [TA No. 56201/Mum/2010, dated 31.07.2012 has held that while computing book profit U/S 1151B of the Act, provisions of section 14A cannot be imported. Therefore, amount disallowed WS 14A of the Act cannot be considered while computing book profi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Consolidated Finvest & Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6521/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amit Shuklaa.Y. 2011-12

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 115JSection 14A

…21/Del/2014 A.Y.: 2011-12 Consolidated Finvest & Holding Ltd. fact Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules has no relevance to the computation of book profits u/s 115 JB. A similar view has been taken in the following decisions. i. Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del.) ii. Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA no.493/2010-ITAT Delhi dated 18.02.2011. iii. Pretoria Enclave Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA no.108/Kol/2012, ITAT Kolkata decided on 21.6.2012. iv. ACIT vs. Spray Engineering Devices Ltd. (2012) 53 SOT 760 (Chandigarh). 4.1. Even otherwise also S.14A(1) of the Act specifically states that the afor…

Rangji Realties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby

ITA 708/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.708/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Shri Rangji Realties Pvt. बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Shri Vs. Rangji Investments Pvt. Ltd.) M.K.Road, 1B, 1St Floor, Mumbai - 400020 35 Court Chambers, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics5225J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: ShriC. S. Sharma
Section 115JSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ddition u/s.14A of the Act of Rs.60,000/- made by the assessee. The same amount is required to be added to the book profit computed u/s.115JB of the Act, since the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 32 SOT 101 has been reversed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the same case reported in 361 ITR 505. ISSUE NO.6:- 8. Issue no.6 is not pressed by the assessee, therefore nowhere required to be adjudication. ISSUE NO.7:- A.Y.2010-11 9. Issue no.7 is general in nature which nowhere required adjudication. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is…

D.C.I.T Cir - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S Phillips Carbon Black Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

ITA 2123/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri P.M.Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 2123/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 D.C.I.T, Vs M/s Phillips Carbon Black Ltd Cir-10, Kolkata PAN: AABCP5762E (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2124/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 D.C.I.T, Cir-10, Vs M/s Phillips Carbon Black Ltd Cir-10, Kolkata PAN: AABCP5762E (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No: 30/Kol/2014 [ ITA No. 2124/Kol/2013] A.Y. 2008-09 M/s Phillips Carbon Black Ltd Vs. D.C.I.T, PAN: AABCP5762E Cir-10, Kolkata (Cross Objector) (Respondent) For Revenue :…

D.C.I.T Cir - 4, Kolkata vs. M/S Madhu Jayanti International, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1011/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 172Section 197Section 197ASection 40

…en duly incorporated in Explanation 1 to Section115JB. Explanation 1 does not suggest that disallowances made u/s. 14A is to be added to the book profit of the appellant. I also agree with the case law cited by the AR in the case of Goetze (India) td. Vs. CIT 32 SOT 101 (ITAT, Delhi) where it has been held no addition to the book profit shall be made on account of expenditure incurred to earn exempt income. The AO is directed to re- compute MAT u/s. 115JB accordingly.” Being aggrieved by this order of L’d CIT(A) Revenue is in appeal before us. 22. At the outset, we find that provisions to Sec. 115JB are starred…

Universal Industrial Fund Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, C Ircle- 6, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1838/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2007-08

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Year :2007-08 Universal Industrial Fund V/s. DCIT, Circle-6, P7, Ltd. (in the matter of Chowringhee Square, Hilltop Holdings India Kolkata-700 069 Ltd. since amalgamated) 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Klkkata-700 001 [PAN No.AAACU 4032 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri D.S.Damle, FCA Shri Sallong Yaden ACIT,SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-04-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 27-05-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/…

ACIT, Circle-3, Kolkata vs. M/S Tata Metalics Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 956/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…years 2005-2006 & I.T.A. Nos. 957 & 738/KOL/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-2007 & I.T.A. Nos. 958 & 739/KOL/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-2008 & I.T.A. Nos. 959 & 740/KOL/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-2009 Page 15 of 22 the case of Goetze India Limited reported in 32 SOT 101, wherein it was held that the provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 14A could not be imported into clause (f) of Explanation (1) to section 115JA. 26. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As agreed by the ld. representatives of both the sides, this issue i…

A.C.I.T., Cir-II, Kolkata vs. M/S. Philips Electronics India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1928/KOL/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Srivastava, CIT/ ld.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

…ecision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Ltd vs ACIT in ITA No. 4931/Del/2010 for Asst Year 2007-08 dated 18.2.2011 (Para 11 of judgement) b) Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT reported in (2009) 32 SOT 101 (Del) dated 20.5.2009 for Asst Year 2000-01 (Para 4.6 of judgement) In view of the aforesaid judicial precedents, we hold that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act could be made for the purpose of computing book profits u/s 115JA of the Act. Accordingly, the ground nos. 3.1 to 3.4 raised by the assessee are allowed. 5. In the result, both the appe…