Avani Exports v. CIT

348 ITR 391High Court2012#2048 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 366,470 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sava Enterprises, Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3849/DEL/2014[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80H

…such was illegal. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it was requested that the addition ofRs.1,66,77,703/- be deleted. 8.3 I have carefully perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports vs. CIT, 348 ITR 391. It is seen from the first Para of the order of the Hon'ble Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had transferred these matters pending before various High Courts to the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The first Para of the Order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is as under :- "All these writ applications were taken up together pursuant to the…

P.M.Palani Mudaliar & Co., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1555/CHNY/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Ms. J. Sree Vidya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 80H

…to the assesses whose assessment were completed. Argument of the assessee was that provisos (ii)(iii) and (iv) had no applicability to the assessee. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports & Ors vs. CIT & Ors 348 ITR 391 and that of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Avani Exports (2016) 007 ITR-OL 0046. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not impressed ITA No. 1555/Mds/2016. :- 4 -: by the above arguments. According to him, what Assessing Officer had applied was judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. IPCA Laboratories Ltd (supr…

The DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Forbes Gokak Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1573/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. D C I T – 1(1) (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579 Vs. Forbes Bldg., Charanjit Ran Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent D C I T – 1(1) M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579 Vs. Forbes Bldg., Charanjit Ran Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave &For Respondent: Shri Pratap Sinh &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 295(4)Section 80H

…for the assessee drew our out attention to page 94 of the paper book wherein the details of working of deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act have been given. Further, the learned AR by relying on the decisions in the case of (i) Avani Exports Vs. CIT, Rajkot [2012] 348 ITR 391 (Guj. HC), (ii) Vijaya Silk M/s. Forbes & Company Ltd. House (Bangalore) Ltd. Vs. UOI [2013] 349 ITR 566 (Bom. HC) and (iii) CIT Vs Avani Exports [2015] 58 taxmann.com 100 (SC) submitted that amendment to section 80HHC by way of adding third and fourth provisos is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. On careful perusal of the aforesaid dec…

Forbes & Company Limited (Formerly Known As Forbes Gokak Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1382/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. D C I T – 1(1) (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579 Vs. Forbes Bldg., Charanjit Ran Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent D C I T – 1(1) M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579 Vs. Forbes Bldg., Charanjit Ran Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave &For Respondent: Shri Pratap Sinh &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 295(4)Section 80H

…for the assessee drew our out attention to page 94 of the paper book wherein the details of working of deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act have been given. Further, the learned AR by relying on the decisions in the case of (i) Avani Exports Vs. CIT, Rajkot [2012] 348 ITR 391 (Guj. HC), (ii) Vijaya Silk M/s. Forbes & Company Ltd. House (Bangalore) Ltd. Vs. UOI [2013] 349 ITR 566 (Bom. HC) and (iii) CIT Vs Avani Exports [2015] 58 taxmann.com 100 (SC) submitted that amendment to section 80HHC by way of adding third and fourth provisos is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. On careful perusal of the aforesaid dec…

Quality Bags Exporters (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC-IV, Kol, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2787/KOL/2013[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 2787 To 2790/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2001-02,2002-03,2003-04 & 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debasish Roy, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 28Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM] I.T.A Nos. 2787 to 2790/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2001-02,2002-03,2003-04 & 2004-05 Quality Bags Exporters (P)Ltd. -vs.- A.C.I.T., Central Circle-IV, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAACQ 0402 D) (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Debasish Roy, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 16.08.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM These are appeals by the Assessee against the common order dated 16.09.2013 of CI…

M/S. Forbes Gokak Ltd, Mumbai vs. The JCIT OSD RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 6721/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosai, Jm Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Income Tax, Osd, Range Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 1 (1), Mumbai Pan: Aaacf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Income Tax, Range 1 (1), Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Mumbai Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaccf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent

Section 115OSection 14ASection 80H

…the assessee drew our out attention to page 94 of the paper book wherein the details of working of deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act have been given. Further, the learned AR by relying on the decisions in the case of (i) Avani Exports Vs. CIT, Rajkot [2012] 348 ITR 391 (Guj. HC), (ii) Vijaya Silk House (Bangalore) Ltd. Vs. UOI [2013] 349 ITR 566 (Bom. HC) and (iii) CIT Vs Avani Exports [2015] 58 taxmann.com 100 (SC) submitted that amendment to section 80HHC by way of adding third and fourth provisos is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. On careful perusal of the aforesaid decisions it is noticed tha…

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Forbes Gokak Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 6580/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosai, Jm Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Income Tax, Osd, Range Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 1 (1), Mumbai Pan: Aaacf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd., Forbes Income Tax, Range 1 (1), Building, Charajeet Rai Marg, Mumbai Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaccf 1765A Appellant .. Respondent

Section 115OSection 14ASection 80H

…the assessee drew our out attention to page 94 of the paper book wherein the details of working of deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act have been given. Further, the learned AR by relying on the decisions in the case of (i) Avani Exports Vs. CIT, Rajkot [2012] 348 ITR 391 (Guj. HC), (ii) Vijaya Silk House (Bangalore) Ltd. Vs. UOI [2013] 349 ITR 566 (Bom. HC) and (iii) CIT Vs Avani Exports [2015] 58 taxmann.com 100 (SC) submitted that amendment to section 80HHC by way of adding third and fourth provisos is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. On careful perusal of the aforesaid decisions it is noticed tha…

M/S. Veejay Impex, Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C.-Xiii, Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 1093/KOL/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2002-03 M/S. Veejay Impex -Versus- A.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xiii, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aacfv5247L) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S.M.S.Tauheed, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 80H

…ly relied on the order of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions . We find that the issue before us is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports & Ors vs CIT & Ors reported in (2012) 348 ITR 391 (Guj) wherein it was held that the amendment brought out by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2005 in section 80HHC of the Act could have only prospective operation. The Court 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…

Magppie Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4315/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 80HSection 80I

…w.e.f. AY 98-99, by Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005, however, we find that the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India, [2014] 46 taxmann.com 341 (Delhi) following the judgment in the case of Avani Exports vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 391/23 taxmann.com 62/209 taxmann 59(Mag) has held the said amendment is prospective in nature and not retrospective. The finding of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Jain (supra) are reproduced as under: “2. It would be evident from prayer (a) itself that essentially the petitioner is challenging the retrospectivity of the amendments…

Magppie Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4314/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 80HSection 80I

…w.e.f. AY 98-99, by Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005, however, we find that the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India, [2014] 46 taxmann.com 341 (Delhi) following the judgment in the case of Avani Exports vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 391/23 taxmann.com 62/209 taxmann 59(Mag) has held the said amendment is prospective in nature and not retrospective. The finding of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Jain (supra) are reproduced as under: “2. It would be evident from prayer (a) itself that essentially the petitioner is challenging the retrospectivity of the amendments…

Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd vs. Addl. CIT Range II

Appeal is disposed of as above

ITA 4159/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Smt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillaismt. Beena A. Pillai Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri SomilFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR
Section 80H

…80HHC. He submitted that this ground of appeal was not pressed at the time of hearing before the ITAT because there was a retrospective amendment in Section 80HHC. However, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports & Ors. Vs. CIT & Ors. – [2012] 348 ITR 391 (Guj) has held the amendment to Section 80HHC to be prospective. That the Revenue as well as the assessee both have filed appeals before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and, the Hon’ble Apex court in Special Leave Appeal Nos.9273/2013, not only upheld the finding of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Avani Exports & Ors. (supra) that amendment in Secti…

Surajmal Exports, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T Cir - 32, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 410/KOL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2015AY 2001-02

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 28Section 80H

…I.T.A. No. 410/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2001-2002 Page 1 of 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 410/KOL/ 2013 Assessment Year : 2001-2002 Surajmal Exports,..............................................................Appellant 28/2, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700 017 [PAN : AALFS 5891 E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,.........................Respondent Circle-32, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton row, Kolkata-700 071 Appearances by: Shri Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate, for…

Sunbio Technology Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 7, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 42/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal & Miss Varsha Jalan, advocatesFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 254Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No.42/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Sunbio Technology Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AAECS8587R) Circle-7, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 26.10.2015 Date of pronouncement: 29.10.2015 For the Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal & Miss Varsha Jalan, advocates For the Respondent: N o n e ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM: This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-VIII, Kolkata in Appeal No.15/CIT(A)-VIII/Kol/2011-12 dated 29.08.2012. Asses…

Patton Intl Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T CC - II, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 351/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Dev Kumar Kothari, FCA &For Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 80H

…HHC(3) of the act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports, supra, and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avni Exports & Ors. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 391 (Guj) allowed the claim of assessee by observing as under: “Even during the appellate proceedings the appellant has not adduced necessary and sufficient evidence to prove that it fulfilled the conditions laid down in the 3rd and the 4th proviso to section 80HHC(3), therefore, he does not get the benefit of addition of ninety percent of export inc…

D.C.I.T CC - II, Kolkata. vs. M/S Patton International Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 345/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Dev Kumar Kothari, FCA &For Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 80H

…HHC(3) of the act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports, supra, and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avni Exports & Ors. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 391 (Guj) allowed the claim of assessee by observing as under: “Even during the appellate proceedings the appellant has not adduced necessary and sufficient evidence to prove that it fulfilled the conditions laid down in the 3rd and the 4th proviso to section 80HHC(3), therefore, he does not get the benefit of addition of ninety percent of export inc…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 799/CHNY/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.799/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003 -2004 )

For Appellant: Shri. S. Das Gupta, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 35DSection 80H

…ncluding the cases of Topman Exports reported in 342 ITR 49 (SC), IPCA Laboratory Ltd v. DCIT reported in 266 ITR 521 (SC) on the issue of taxability of DEPB and allowability of deduction u/s.80HHC and passed an order dated 02.07.2012 which was reported in 348 ITR 391 in the case of Avani Exports & Others v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot and others. The operational paras 26 & 27 of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat I.T.A.No.799/Mds/2014. :- 6 -: High Court in the case of M/s. Avani Exports and Others vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 391 is reproduced herewith: " On consideration of the entire materials…