Avani Exports v. CIT

348 ITR 391High Court2012#2049 most cited

What is Avani Exports v. CIT authority for?

A substantive amendment to tax law can only operate retrospectively if it benefits the assessee; it cannot be applied retrospectively to withdraw a benefit or detrimentally affect assessees, even if their assessments are pending or concluded.

56

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Avani Exports v. CIT · retrospective amendment · substantive amendment · Section 80HHC · Section 115BBE · prospective operation · benefit to assessee · withdrawal of tax benefit · detrimental effect · amendment validity

Also reported as

23 Taxmann.com 62

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 132(4)Section 153ASection 28Section 69BSection 55(2)(aa)Section 80HHC

Issues it is cited on

abatement of assessmentsection 153a proceedingssection 55(2)section 69dthird party informationsection 158bdretrospective amendmentsection 69bassistant directorsection 55statement under section 132(4)section 156

Judgments citing Avani Exports v. CIT

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 980/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 50(2)(ec)Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)Section 55(2)(as)Section 56(2)(ac)

…sh Jaisinghani are possible, the one which avoids retrospectivity must prevail, and that an Explanation inserting a new taxable concept “cannot be regarded as merely clarificatory.” The same principle was reaffirmed by the Gujarat High Court in Avani Exports (348 ITR 391), which struck down retrospective withdrawal of a benefit under section 80HHC on the ground that no amendment can operate to the detriment of those whose assessments have already been concluded. Their Lordships categorically observed that “in the type of substantive amendment, retrospective operation can be given only if it is for the benefit of…

PARK PARADISE,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

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

ITA 208/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member\nAnd Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA Nos.207 & 208/Ahd/2022\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nPark Plaza\nNr. Saurabh Park,\nGotri-Samata, Road,\nGotri Vadodara\nGujarat-390021\nPAN: AAPFP6647K\nVs\nThe PCIT,\nVadodara-1,\nVadodara\nPark Paradise\nPlot No. 75,\nNr. Billa Bong School,\nVadsar, Vadodara\nGujarat-390010\nPAN: AASFP0787D\n(Appellant)\nVs\nThe PCIT,\nVadodara-1,\nVadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented: Shri M.J. Shah, Adv. &\nS

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69C

…\nEstate Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1966) 60 ITR 262 and CIT Vs Scindia Steam\nNavigation Co. Ltd. (1961) 42 ITR 589\nEven the jurisdictional Hon. Gujarat High Court in case of AVANI\nEXPORTS & OTHERS VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT\n& ORS GUJARAT (2012) 348 ITR 391 (GUJARAT) held that in case of\nsubstantive amendment, retrospective operation can be given only if it is\nfor the benefit of the assessee but not in a case where it affects even a\nfewer section of the assesses.\nSimilarly in (2015) Tax Corp (DT) 60727 (HC-GUJARAT) NIKO\nRESOURCES LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA the Hon. Gujarat HC\nheld that subs…

PARK PLAZA,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

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

ITA 207/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member\nAnd Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\n\nITA Nos.207 & 208/Ahd/2022\nAssessment Year 2017-18\n\n| Park Plaza\n| Nr. Saurabh Park,\n| Gotri-Samata, Road,\n| Gotri Vadodara\n| Gujarat-390021\n| PAN: AAPFP6647K\n| Park Paradise\n| Plot No. 75,\n| Nr. Billa Bong School,\n| Vadsar, Vadodara\n| Gujarat-390010\n| PAN: AASFP0787D\n| (Appellant)\n\n| The PCIT,\n| Vadodara-1,\nVs Vadodara\n\n| Vs The PCIT,\n| Vadodara-1,\n| Vadodara\n| (Respondent)\n\nA

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69C

…Estate Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1966) 60 ITR 262 and CIT Vs Scindia Steam\nNavigation Co. Ltd. (1961) 42 ITR 589\n\nEven the jurisdictional Hon. Gujarat High Court in case of AVANI\nEXPORTS & OTHERS VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT\n& ORS GUJARAT (2012) 348 ITR 391 (GUJARAT) held that in case of\nsubstantive amendment, retrospective operation can be given only if it is\nfor the benefit of the assessee but not in a case where it affects even a\nfewer section of the assesses.\n\nSimilarly in (2015) Tax Corp (DT) 60727 (HC-GUJARAT) NIKO\nRESOURCES LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA the Hon. Gujarat HC\nheld that su…

DCIT, CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Accordingly, there is no substance raised by the department and the same is dismissed

ITA 619/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2003-04
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…s (Amendment) Act, 2005 with effect from 01/04/1998. 14. We find that reliance placed by the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) on the retrospective amendment has now been struck down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax 348 ITR 391 wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed and held as under:- “26. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned amendment is violative for its retrospective operation in order to overcome the decision of the Tribunal, and at the same…

M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(4) (EARLIER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-8,KOLKATTA), MUMBAI

ITA 612/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2003-04
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…(Amendment) Act, 2005 with effect from 01/04/1998. 14. We find that reliance placed by the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) on the retrospective amendment has now been struck down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax 348 ITR 391 wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed and held as under:- “26. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned amendment is violative for its retrospective operation in order to overcome the decision of the Tribunal, and at the same…

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ment made to a taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove ‘hardships’ only of the assessee, not of the Department. On the contrary, imposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship…………...” ii) Avani Exports v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 391 (Guj) The Hon’ble High Court in the context of retrospective amendments has given the following finding in para 20 of its order. ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 98 of 104 “……………………. If after inducing a citizen to arrange his business in a manner with a clear stipulation that if the existing s…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ment made to a taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove ‘hardships’ only of the assessee, not of the Department. On the contrary, imposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship…………...” ii) Avani Exports v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 391 (Guj) The Hon’ble High Court in the context of retrospective amendments has given the following finding in para 20 of its order. ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 98 of 104 “……………………. If after inducing a citizen to arrange his business in a manner with a clear stipulation that if the existing s…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ment made to a taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove ‘hardships’ only of the assessee, not of the Department. On the contrary, imposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship…………...” ii) Avani Exports v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 391 (Guj) The Hon’ble High Court in the context of retrospective amendments has given the following finding in para 20 of its order. ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 98 of 104 “……………………. If after inducing a citizen to arrange his business in a manner with a clear stipulation that if the existing s…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ment made to a taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove ‘hardships’ only of the assessee, not of the Department. On the contrary, imposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship…………...” ii) Avani Exports v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 391 (Guj) The Hon’ble High Court in the context of retrospective amendments has given the following finding in para 20 of its order. ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 98 of 104 “……………………. If after inducing a citizen to arrange his business in a manner with a clear stipulation that if the existing s…

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ment made to a taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove ‘hardships’ only of the assessee, not of the Department. On the contrary, imposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship…………...” ii) Avani Exports v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 391 (Guj) The Hon’ble High Court in the context of retrospective amendments has given the following finding in para 20 of its order. ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 98 of 104 “……………………. If after inducing a citizen to arrange his business in a manner with a clear stipulation that if the existing s…

KRISHNA HIREN GUJARATI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD. 3(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Krishna Hiren Gujarati, I.T.O., C-24, Krishna Park Society, Opp. Ward-3(2)(4), Vs. Bhagat Nagar, Ved Gurukul Road, Surat. Surat-4 (Gujarat) Pan No. Acupk 0294 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hybrid hearing) Krishna Hiren Gujarati, I.T.O., C-24, Krishna Park Society, Opp. Ward-3(2)(4), Vs. Bhagat Nagar, Ved Gurukul Road, Surat. Surat-4 (Gujarat) PAN No. ACUPK 0294 Q Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Ms. Chaitali Shah, C.A. Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13/10/2023 Date of pronouncement 07/11/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ord…

USHABEN VINODBHAI BELADIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 246/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.246/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Vs. The Ito, No.237, Vikram Nagar Society, Ward – 3(3)(1), Near Trikam Nagar, L.H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aimpb4673N (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT (SMC) BENCH BEFORE SHRI DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.246/SRT/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Vs. The ITO, No.237, Vikram Nagar Society, Ward – 3(3)(1), Near Trikam Nagar, L.H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIMPB4673N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Chatali Shah, CA Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR 23/08/2023 Date of Hearing 30/10/2023 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining…

ARJUNSINH HARISINH THAKOR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARDOLI

In the result, grounds No

ITA 245/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. PAN No. AABPT 1270 G Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Ms. Chaitali Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 31/03/2023 Date of pronouncement 15/06/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Na…

SHRI RAJENDRABHAI RAMANLAL DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 293/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.293/SRT/2022 (AY 2017-18) (Hearing in Physical Court) Rajendrabhai Ramanlal Income Tax Officer, Ward- Desai, AT N Post-Kharvasa, 3(2)(8) Room No.109, Vs Via-Udhna, Anavil Business Centre, Tal: Choryasi, Dist. Maher Nager, Jalaram Surat-394210 Society, Adajan Gam, PAN No: ABKPD 0975 E Surat,-395009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri Mehul Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date…

S N TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Srt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1St Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs0060R

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.77/SRT/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1st Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAKCS0060R िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA राज"व क" ओर से / Respondent by Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT-DR स…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE ,, PUNE vs. VIDYA PRATISHTHAN,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 2550/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2549 & 2550/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 147Section 32Section 32(1)

…n Para 6 of his order. “6. Ground No. 2 & 3 These grounds relates to challenging the findings of A.O. wherein, the AO has disallowed the depreciation of Rs.2,68,96,785/- by relying on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institution 348 ITR 349. (i) I have considered the submission of the appellant carefully and gone through the A.O.‟s order. Although, in aforesaid paras, the issue of notice u/s. 148 is held to be bad in Law and accordingly, the impugned grounds have became academic, however, on merit also, these grounds need a proper adjudication. Regarding the claim of double deductio…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE ,, PUNE vs. VIDYA PRATISHTHAN,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 2549/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2549 & 2550/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 147Section 32Section 32(1)

…n Para 6 of his order. “6. Ground No. 2 & 3 These grounds relates to challenging the findings of A.O. wherein, the AO has disallowed the depreciation of Rs.2,68,96,785/- by relying on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institution 348 ITR 349. (i) I have considered the submission of the appellant carefully and gone through the A.O.‟s order. Although, in aforesaid paras, the issue of notice u/s. 148 is held to be bad in Law and accordingly, the impugned grounds have became academic, however, on merit also, these grounds need a proper adjudication. Regarding the claim of double deductio…

MICRO INKS PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS MICRO INKS LTD.),VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ( INTL. TAXN.), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/AHD/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

Section 201Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vb)

…urt in the case Avani Exports reported in 348 ITR 391 and subsequently followed by the Honorable Mumbai High Court in the case of VijayaSlik House Ltd V/s. Union of India reported in 349 ITR 566. The observation of the Honorable Gujarat High court reported in 348 ITR 391 in reproduced hereunder:- "13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the benefit based on pendency of the proceedings of assessment and discrimination based thereon definitely violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of completion of assessment, the assessees have little role to pay. Aft…

THE ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, SURAT vs. MICRO INKS LIMITED,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2375/AHD/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

Section 201Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vb)

…urt in the case Avani Exports reported in 348 ITR 391 and subsequently followed by the Honorable Mumbai High Court in the case of VijayaSlik House Ltd V/s. Union of India reported in 349 ITR 566. The observation of the Honorable Gujarat High court reported in 348 ITR 391 in reproduced hereunder:- "13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the benefit based on pendency of the proceedings of assessment and discrimination based thereon definitely violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of completion of assessment, the assessees have little role to pay. Aft…

SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA S.PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD)-I,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3501/AHD/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254Section 80HSection 80ISection 80L

…- application of mind as it appears from the records before us. It also appears from the records that the Hon’ble ITAT in its order dated 24.01.2013 followed the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Avani Exports reported in 348 ITR 391 in terms of which the authorities below ought to have allowed the deduction u/s 80HHC on the export incentive of DEPB. Neither the AO, nor the Learned CIT(A) has not took into consideration this particular aspect of the matter and hence we are of the considered view to remit the issue to the file of the Learned AO to render the benefit to the ass…

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3

Avani Exports v. CIT (348 ITR 391) — Cited in 56 Judgments | BharatTax