(i) CIT v. Vinbros & Co.

218 ITR 634High Court#11322 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. Vinbros & Co.

DCIT CC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. VIVEK MEHROTRA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 80I

…re not specified in XIII Schedule. Our attention was also drawn towards the definition of „manufacture‟ as given u/s 2(29BA) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 349 ITR 697 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 218 ITR 634 (Mad) (iii) Shree Par Frangrances (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 20 SOT 440 (Mum) (iv) Natural Frangrances Bhimtal vs. DCIT Nainital, I.T.A. No.4183/Del/2011 (Del) (v) DCIT Nainital vs. Natural Fragrances 219 TM 28 (Mag) (Uttaranchal) (vi) CIT vs. Innovative Industries (Guj) I.T.A. No. 2570 of 2010 (vii) Income Tax Officer Udaipur vs. Arihant Ti…

DCIT CC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. VIVEK MEHROTRA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 2175/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…‘manufacture’ as given u/s 2(29BA) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 349 ITR 697 (SC) ITA No. 2173,2174 and 2175/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 200-11, 11-12 and 12-13 Page 4 of 21 (ii) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 218 ITR 634 (Mad) (iii) Shree Par Frangrances (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 20 SOT 440 (Mum) (iv) Natural Frangrances Bhimtal vs. DCIT Nainital, I.T.A. No.4183/Del/2011 (Del) (v) DCIT Nainital vs. Natural Fragrances 219 TM 28 (Mag) (Uttaranchal) (vi) CIT vs. Innovative Industries (Guj) I.T.A. No. 2570 of 2010 (vii) Income Tax Officer Udaipur vs. Arihant Ti…

DCIT CC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. VIVEK MEHROTRA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 2174/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…‘manufacture’ as given u/s 2(29BA) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 349 ITR 697 (SC) ITA No. 2173,2174 and 2175/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 200-11, 11-12 and 12-13 Page 4 of 21 (ii) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 218 ITR 634 (Mad) (iii) Shree Par Frangrances (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 20 SOT 440 (Mum) (iv) Natural Frangrances Bhimtal vs. DCIT Nainital, I.T.A. No.4183/Del/2011 (Del) (v) DCIT Nainital vs. Natural Fragrances 219 TM 28 (Mag) (Uttaranchal) (vi) CIT vs. Innovative Industries (Guj) I.T.A. No. 2570 of 2010 (vii) Income Tax Officer Udaipur vs. Arihant Ti…

DCIT CC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. VIVEK MEHROTRA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed, in the terms indicated above

ITA 2173/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…‘manufacture’ as given u/s 2(29BA) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 349 ITR 697 (SC) ITA No. 2173,2174 and 2175/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 200-11, 11-12 and 12-13 Page 4 of 21 (ii) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 218 ITR 634 (Mad) (iii) Shree Par Frangrances (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 20 SOT 440 (Mum) (iv) Natural Frangrances Bhimtal vs. DCIT Nainital, I.T.A. No.4183/Del/2011 (Del) (v) DCIT Nainital vs. Natural Fragrances 219 TM 28 (Mag) (Uttaranchal) (vi) CIT vs. Innovative Industries (Guj) I.T.A. No. 2570 of 2010 (vii) Income Tax Officer Udaipur vs. Arihant Ti…

ACIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, SIKKIM vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES,, SIKKIM

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 48/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Sri M. Balaganesh) Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…are not specified in XIII Schedule. Our attention was also drawn towards the definition of 'manufacture' as given u/s 2(29BA) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 349 ITR 697 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 218 ITR 634 (Mad) (iii) Shree Par Frangrances (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 20 SOT 440 (Mum) (iv) Natural Frangrances Bhimtal vs. DCIT Nainital, I.T.A. No.4183/Del/2011 (Del) (v) DCIT Nainital vs. Natural Fragrances 219 TM 28 (Mag) (Uttaranchal) (vi) CIT vs. Innovative Industries (Guj) I.T.A. No. 2570 of 2010 (vii) Income Tax Officer Udaipur vs. Arihant Ti…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1965/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…are not specified in XIII Schedule. Our attention was also drawn towards the definition of ‘manufacture’ as given u/s 2(29BA) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 349 ITR 697 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 218 ITR 634 (Mad) (iii) Shree Par Frangrances (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 20 SOT 440 (Mum) (iv) Natural Frangrances Bhimtal vs. DCIT Nainital, I.T.A. No.4183/Del/2011 (Del) (v) DCIT Nainital vs. Natural Fragrances 219 TM 28 (Mag) (Uttaranchal) (vi) CIT vs. Innovative Industries (Guj) I.T.A. No. 2570 of 2010 (vii) Income Tax Officer Udaipur vs. Arihant Ti…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…are not specified in XIII Schedule. Our attention was also drawn towards the definition of ‘manufacture’ as given u/s 2(29BA) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 349 ITR 697 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 218 ITR 634 (Mad) (iii) Shree Par Frangrances (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 20 SOT 440 (Mum) (iv) Natural Frangrances Bhimtal vs. DCIT Nainital, I.T.A. No.4183/Del/2011 (Del) (v) DCIT Nainital vs. Natural Fragrances 219 TM 28 (Mag) (Uttaranchal) (vi) CIT vs. Innovative Industries (Guj) I.T.A. No. 2570 of 2010 (vii) Income Tax Officer Udaipur vs. Arihant Ti…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1963/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…are not specified in XIII Schedule. Our attention was also drawn towards the definition of ‘manufacture’ as given u/s 2(29BA) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 349 ITR 697 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 218 ITR 634 (Mad) (iii) Shree Par Frangrances (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 20 SOT 440 (Mum) (iv) Natural Frangrances Bhimtal vs. DCIT Nainital, I.T.A. No.4183/Del/2011 (Del) (v) DCIT Nainital vs. Natural Fragrances 219 TM 28 (Mag) (Uttaranchal) (vi) CIT vs. Innovative Industries (Guj) I.T.A. No. 2570 of 2010 (vii) Income Tax Officer Udaipur vs. Arihant Ti…

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1962/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…are not specified in XIII Schedule. Our attention was also drawn towards the definition of ‘manufacture’ as given u/s 2(29BA) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 349 ITR 697 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Vinbros & Co. 218 ITR 634 (Mad) (iii) Shree Par Frangrances (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 20 SOT 440 (Mum) (iv) Natural Frangrances Bhimtal vs. DCIT Nainital, I.T.A. No.4183/Del/2011 (Del) (v) DCIT Nainital vs. Natural Fragrances 219 TM 28 (Mag) (Uttaranchal) (vi) CIT vs. Innovative Industries (Guj) I.T.A. No. 2570 of 2010 (vii) Income Tax Officer Udaipur vs. Arihant Ti…

(i) CIT v. Vinbros & Co. (218 ITR 634) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax