What is Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector Of Customs, Bombay authority for?

The Supreme Court establishes a principle of statutory interpretation that terms like 'assistance' can be construed expansively to include a 'reward', a principle leveraged in income tax cases to determine if receipts such as excise duty exemptions are taxable income or non-taxable capital receipts.

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector Of Customs, Bombay (4 SCC 297)

Q: How many judgments cite Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector Of Customs, Bombay?

81 judgments on BharatTax cite Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector Of Customs, Bombay (4 SCC 297), spanning 2015 to 2024.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING P LTD, TIRUPPUR,TAMILNADU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

…so include a reward. He strongly placed reliance in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2002] 4 SCC 219 at page 45 of the paper book and in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [2002] 4 SCC 297 at page 54 of the paper book. Further, he 15 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24, 706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23 referred to order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the Amritsar Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT v. Gravita Metal Inc. in ITA No. 594/Asr/2019 dated 15.06.2023 and argued that the Tribunal held that exemption from excise dut…

GEENA GARMENTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

…so include a reward. He strongly placed reliance in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2002] 4 SCC 219 at page 45 of the paper book and in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [2002] 4 SCC 297 at page 54 of the paper book. Further, he 15 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24, 706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23 referred to order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the Amritsar Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT v. Gravita Metal Inc. in ITA No. 594/Asr/2019 dated 15.06.2023 and argued that the Tribunal held that exemption from excise dut…

ACIT , CIRCLE - 1 , TIRUPUR vs. M/S K.M.KNIT WEARS , TIRUPUR

ITA 768/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Section 28

…nclude a reward. He strongly placed\nreliance in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v.\nBharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2002] 4 SCC 219 at page 45 of the\npaper book and in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of\nCustoms [2002] 4 SCC 297 at page 54 of the paper book. Further, he\nreferred to order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the Amritsar Bench of ITAT\nin the case of ACIT v. Gravita Metal Inc in ITA No. 594/Asr/2019 dated\n15.06.2023 and argued that the Tribunal held that exemption from excise\nduty do not fall in the definition of income as envisaged under section\n2(24)(xviii) of…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LTD., TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3326/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

…so include a reward. He strongly placed reliance in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2002] 4 SCC 219 at page 45 of the paper book and in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [2002] 4 SCC 297 at page 54 of the paper book. Further, he 15 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24, 706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23 referred to order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the Amritsar Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT v. Gravita Metal Inc. in ITA No. 594/Asr/2019 dated 15.06.2023 and argued that the Tribunal held that exemption from excise dut…

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92BSection 92C

…while interpreting a statute, it is not for the courts to treat any word(s) as redundant or superfluous and ignore the same. In this connection, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Apex Coult in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, [(2002) 4 SCC 297 : 2002 SCC Online SC 413], wherein, it was held as follows: “10. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in…

FROST & SULLIVAN (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1259/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92Section 92C

…while interpreting a statute, it is not for the courts to treat any word(s) as redundant or superfluous and ignore the same. In this connection, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Apex Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, [(2002) 4 SCC 297 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC 413], wherein, it was held as follows: M/s. Front & Sullivan (India) Pvt. Ltd. “10. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no…

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FROST AND SULLIVAN (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1148/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92Section 92C

…while interpreting a statute, it is not for the courts to treat any word(s) as redundant or superfluous and ignore the same. In this connection, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Apex Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, [(2002) 4 SCC 297 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC 413], wherein, it was held as follows: M/s. Front & Sullivan (India) Pvt. Ltd. “10. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no…

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 3016/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…while interpreting a statute, it is not for the courts to treat any word(s) as redundant or superfluous and ignore the same. In this connection, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Apex Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, [(2002) 4 SCC 297 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. 413], wherein, it was held as follows: “10. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no word…

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 2933/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…while interpreting a statute, it is not for the courts to treat any word(s) as redundant or superfluous and ignore the same. In this connection, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Apex Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, [(2002) 4 SCC 297 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. 413], wherein, it was held as follows: “10. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no word…

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3512/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Shri NishantFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 15Section 153Section 2Section 32Section 92C

…r the courts to treat any word(s) as redundant or superfluous and 21 A.Y. 2009-10 Tata AIG General Insurance ignore the same. In this connection, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Apex Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, [(2002) 4 SCC 297 : 2002 SCC On Line SC 413], wherein, it was held as follows: “10. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in…

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

ITA 2877/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/ ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 234BSection 234DSection 30Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited DCIT Cir. 15(3)(2) (formerly known as R. No. 451, 4th floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AADCS8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. ARs प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent b…

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

ITA 1795/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 40Section 40(3)Section 48Section 4oSection 92C

…while interpreting a statute, it is not for the courts to treat any word(s) as redundant or superfluous and ignore the same. In this connection, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Apex Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, [(2002) 4 SCC 297 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC 413], wherein, it was held as follows: “10. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in…

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

WA/200056/2021HC Karnataka22 Dec 2022

Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR,K S HEMALEKHA

Section 4

…v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra - AIR 1968 SC 647; d) Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation v. Mansaram Nainwal - (2006) 6 SCC 366; e) Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2002 SC 1334; f) Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs Bombay (2002)4 SCC 297; g) U.P. Cooperative Cane Union Federation Ltd vs Liladhar, (1980) Suppl SCC 437; h) Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Ors. vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors. - (2002) 5 SCC 11; i) Whirlpool Corporation. v. Registrar of Trade Marks - (1998) 8 SCC 1; j) R.L. Jain v DDA - (2004) 4 SCC 79; k) Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co v. Un…

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…d on the following decisions: σ State of Karnataka vs. Jyothi Gas (P) Ltd. [2010] 31 VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 t…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…d on the following decisions: σ State of Karnataka vs. Jyothi Gas (P) Ltd. [2010] 31 VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 t…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…d on the following decisions: σ State of Karnataka vs. Jyothi Gas (P) Ltd. [2010] 31 VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 t…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…d on the following decisions: σ State of Karnataka vs. Jyothi Gas (P) Ltd. [2010] 31 VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 t…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…d on the following decisions: σ State of Karnataka vs. Jyothi Gas (P) Ltd. [2010] 31 VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 t…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…d on the following decisions: σ State of Karnataka vs. Jyothi Gas (P) Ltd. [2010] 31 VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 t…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…d on the following decisions: σ State of Karnataka vs. Jyothi Gas (P) Ltd. [2010] 31 VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 t…

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector Of Customs, Bombay

What is Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector Of Customs, Bombay authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector Of Customs, Bombay

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING P LTD, TIRUPPUR,TAMILNADU

GEENA GARMENTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

ACIT , CIRCLE - 1 , TIRUPUR vs. M/S K.M.KNIT WEARS , TIRUPUR

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LTD., TIRUPUR

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

FROST & SULLIVAN (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3)(2), MUMBAI

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FROST AND SULLIVAN (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE