Vijaya Silk House (Bangalore Ltd. v. GOI

349 ITR 566High Court2013#15674 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Vijaya Silk House (Bangalore Ltd. v. GOI

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)

…nt was held to be ultra vires by the Honorable Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court 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 m…

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)

…nt was held to be ultra vires by the Honorable Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court 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 m…

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

…in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2003-04, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Avani Exports (2015) 58 taxmann.com 100 (SC) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijaya Silk House (Bangalore Ltd. Vs GOI (2013) 349 ITR 566 (Bom). 10.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. supported the orders of the authorities below. 10.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. We find that the very same issue has been considered and held in favour of the assessee by a Coordinate Bench of…

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

…in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2003-04, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Avani Exports (2015) 58 taxmann.com 100 (SC) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijaya Silk House (Bangalore Ltd. Vs GOI (2013) 349 ITR 566 (Bom). 10.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. supported the orders of the authorities below. 10.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. We find that the very same issue has been considered and held in favour of the assessee by a Coordinate Bench of…

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

…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 that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Avani Exports has however, to…

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

…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 that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Avani Exports has however, to…

Vijaya Silk House (Bangalore Ltd. v. GOI (349 ITR 566) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax