UNILEVER OVERSEAS HOLDING AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTL. TAX) - 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2662/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 July 20263 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's representative sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the final assessment order passed by the ACIT. The appeal raised several grounds, including issues related to the limitation period, the applicability of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause for dividend taxation, double taxation, incorrect tax rates, and consequential interest and fees.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, which was granted by the tribunal, rendering the substantive grounds of appeal moot.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 153,Section 234B,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri Vidur Munjal
For Respondent: Shri Arjun Garodia (CIT DR)
Hearing: 01.07.2026Pronounced: 02.07.2026

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2662/MUM/2025 (AY: 2022-23) Unilever Overseas Holding AG, vs. ACIT (Intl. Tax) -4(3)(1), CH-8200, Spitalstrasse 5, Room No. 633, Kautilya Bhavan, Schaffhausen, Switzerland, 8200 Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- C/O Ernst & Young LLP, 16th Floor, 400051. The Ruby, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West-400028. PAN/GIR No: AAACU6882B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vidur Munjal Revenue by Shri Arjun Garodia (CIT DR) Date of Hearing 01.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 02.07.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

The present appeal emanates from the final assessment order passed

under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’)

by the ACIT, Int. Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai [in short, ‘AO’], dated 27.12.2024

for the assessment year (AY) 2022-23 pursuant to the directions dated 29.11.2024

issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel- 2, Mumbai (DRP).

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“Ground no. 1: General 1. erred in passing the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act by determining demand payable amounting to Rs. 153,01,83,379;

ITA No.2662/MUM/2025 Unilever Overseas Holding AG Ground of Appeal No. 2: Order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation

2.

erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the order (passed in December 2024) is time barred and liable to be quashed;

Ground no, 3 to 4: Disallowing benefit of Most Favoured Nation ['MFN') Clause

3.

erred in taxing the dividend income earned by the Appellant at the rate of 10% in terms of Article 10 - Dividends of the India-Switzerland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA') instead of 5% as claimed by the Appellant in the ROI in line with the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause of the India-Switzerland DTAA:

4 ought to have appreciated that the Protocol and the MFN clause are an integral part of the treaty and the India-Switzerland DTAA itself provides for automatic application and does not require a separate notification:

Ground no. 5: Double taxation of Dividend income:

5.

erred in considering the gross total income of Rs. 4,40,99,34,716/-in the computation sheet (ITNS) as against the total income of Rs. 2,20,88,36,480/- determined in the assessment order, thereby resulting into taxing of dividend income twice.

Ground no. 6: Incorrect rate of tax levied:

6.

erred in levying erroneous rate of tax @30% along with surcharge and cess on the amount of total income computed despite being aware of the fact that the Appellant had in the ROI filed for the captioned AY, offered its income to tax as per the provisions of India-Switzerland DTAA being more beneficial to the Appellant.

Ground no. 7: Levy of consequential interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs. 37,57,39,320:

7.

erred in levying consequential interest under section 234B amounting to Rs. 37,57,39,320 on account of double addition of dividend income and charging incorrect rate of tax

Ground no. 8: Levy of Adhoc interest and fees amounting to Rs. 1,35,00,012:

8.

erred in levying total interest amounting to Rs. 38,92,39,332 at sr. no. 42 of the computation sheet accompanying the assessment order, despite levying only consequential interest amounting to Rs. 37,57,39,320 at sr.no. 38 of the

ITA No.2662/MUM/2025 Unilever Overseas Holding AG computation sheet, thereby levying ad-hoc interest of Rs. 1,35,00,012 without specifying or providing any cogent reason.

Ground no. 9: Incorrect computation of demand amounting to INR 23,40,002

9.

erred in considering that refund of Rs. 23,40,002 has already been issued to the Appellant without appreciating the fact that refund of tax and interest determined earlier under section 143(1) of the Act has not been actually received by the Appellant in the absence of any bank account in India.”

3.

At the outset of the hearing, the Ld. AR of the appellant sought permission

of the Bench to withdraw the appeal filed by the appellant. The Ld. CIT-DR has no

objection to the request of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the

appellant is dismissed as withdrawn.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced on 02.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

*Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 02.07.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →