CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

72 Taxmann.com 325High Court2016#1953 most cited

What is CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. authority for?

Profits of an industrial undertaking eligible for deduction under sections 80-I, 80IB, or 80IC are computed without allocating common corporate or head office expenses that lack a direct nexus to the unit's industrial activity.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. · 394 ITR 73 · 72 Taxmann.com 325 · Section 80-I · Section 80IB · Section 80IC · deduction industrial undertaking · allocation common expenses · corporate office expenses · head office expenses · profit computation deduction · direct nexus

Also reported as

394 ITR 73

Sections most often in play

Section 115OSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

interest on refundsection 80hsection 115jasection 80hhsection 35dsection 145asection 80hhcsection 80ibdeduction u/s 80iainterest on securitiessection 244atested party

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

ITO 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kellogg India P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1906/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: S/Shri Hirali Desai & Karan MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Nillu Jaggi
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 72Section 72(2)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2314/MUM/2017(A.Y.2012-13) Kellogg India Private Limited, 1001-1002, 10th Floor, Hiranandani Knowledge Park, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. PAN:AAACK 1748A ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer-15(2)(1), Room No.452, 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Respondent Income Tax Officer-15(2)(1), Room No.452, 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. Kellogg India Private Limited, 1001-1002,…

ACIT Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sterling Holiday Resorts Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6084/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Viswanathan-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. N. Padmanabhan-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to note that he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the 2 M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts Ltd. Assessment Year :2010-11 case of CIT V/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (394 ITR 73) has not reached finality as the department has filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the said order. 2. The learned Authorized Representative for assessee (AR), at the outset, drawing attention to the ground of appeal, submitted that Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/…

Times Guaranty Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4260/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountanat Member & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Memebr

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 32(2)Section 72

…n 32(2) as applicable for A. Y. 1997-98 to 1999-2000 or the same has to be dealt with in accordance with the said provisions as applicable to A. Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05?" 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while following the decision of Hindustan Unilever Ltd 394 ITR 73 (Bom) passed the following order. For appreciation of facts and clarity, the entire order of the Hon’ble High Court is extracted below:- “3 Both these Appeals by the Assessee were kept today for final disposal along with other Appeals filed by the Revenue on the same issue. This by our order dated 2nd August, 2018. 4 Mr. Dalai, learned Counsel fo…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Jain Irrigation System Ltd., Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1184/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MaheshwariFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandia Kanchan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 72A

…has been reversed by the Hon’’ble Bombay High Court. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in appeal titled Times Guarantee Limited Vs. DDIT (supra), after considering the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Unilever Pvt. Ltd. reported as 394 ITR 73 (Bom) decided the issue in favour of assessee/appellant. Thus, the decision of Special Bench in case of Times Guarantee Limited does not hold water as on today. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order on this issue. Accordingly, ground No. 1 of the appeal by Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 6. In ground No. 2 of the appe…

Accenture Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1671/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalaa/w Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.1671/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. Plant no.3, Godrej & Boyce Complex Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West ……………. Appellant Off LBS Marg, Mumbai 400 079 PAN – AACCA8997K v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–3(1), Mumbai ITA no.1110/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–3(1), Mumbai v/s Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. 14th Floor, The Ruby 29, Senapati Bapat Marg…

Ultimate Flexipack Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 901/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble & Ultimate Flexipack Ltd. Vs Dcit 305, 3Rd Floor, Bhanot Corner, Central Circle-18 Pamposh Enclave, Greater Kailash-1 Ara Centre,E-2, Jhandewalan New Delhi Aaacu6565D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Ultimate Flexipack Ltd. Central Circle-18 305, 3Rd Floor, Bhanot Corner, Ara Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan Pamposh Enclave, Greater New Delhi Kailash-1 New Delhi Aaacu6565D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 80Section 80I

…xus with the manufacturing activity of the undertaking have to be considered and taken into account: i) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. CIT 350 ITR 166 (Bom) ii) Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT 273 ITR 152 (Mad) iii) CIT vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 394 ITR 73 (Bom) iv) Liberty India vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) 7. The Ld. AR submitted that such technical know-how which has been acquired by the assessee from Mr. Ashok Chaturvedi has been shared by the assessee not only for the manufacture of products in Baddi and Jammu units but has shared it with others and earned sub-licensing fee amounting to Rs. 7.18 c…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ultimate Flexible Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2782/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble & Ultimate Flexipack Ltd. Vs Dcit 305, 3Rd Floor, Bhanot Corner, Central Circle-18 Pamposh Enclave, Greater Kailash-1 Ara Centre,E-2, Jhandewalan New Delhi Aaacu6565D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Ultimate Flexipack Ltd. Central Circle-18 305, 3Rd Floor, Bhanot Corner, Ara Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan Pamposh Enclave, Greater New Delhi Kailash-1 New Delhi Aaacu6565D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 80Section 80I

…xus with the manufacturing activity of the undertaking have to be considered and taken into account: i) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. CIT 350 ITR 166 (Bom) ii) Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT 273 ITR 152 (Mad) iii) CIT vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 394 ITR 73 (Bom) iv) Liberty India vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) 7. The Ld. AR submitted that such technical know-how which has been acquired by the assessee from Mr. Ashok Chaturvedi has been shared by the assessee not only for the manufacture of products in Baddi and Jammu units but has shared it with others and earned sub-licensing fee amounting to Rs. 7.18 c…

Ultimate Flexipack Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2199/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble & Ultimate Flexipack Ltd. Vs Dcit 305, 3Rd Floor, Bhanot Corner, Central Circle-18 Pamposh Enclave, Greater Kailash-1 Ara Centre,E-2, Jhandewalan New Delhi Aaacu6565D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Ultimate Flexipack Ltd. Central Circle-18 305, 3Rd Floor, Bhanot Corner, Ara Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan Pamposh Enclave, Greater New Delhi Kailash-1 New Delhi Aaacu6565D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 80Section 80I

…xus with the manufacturing activity of the undertaking have to be considered and taken into account: i) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. CIT 350 ITR 166 (Bom) ii) Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT 273 ITR 152 (Mad) iii) CIT vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 394 ITR 73 (Bom) iv) Liberty India vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) 7. The Ld. AR submitted that such technical know-how which has been acquired by the assessee from Mr. Ashok Chaturvedi has been shared by the assessee not only for the manufacture of products in Baddi and Jammu units but has shared it with others and earned sub-licensing fee amounting to Rs. 7.18 c…

Damco India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1155/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am It(Tp)A No.1155/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Damco India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 13Th Floor, Tower A Income-Tax, Circle- 6(2)(1) Urmi Estate Mumbai 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel West, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aahcs6078Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM IT(TP)A No.1155/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year :2012-13) M/s. Damco India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 13th Floor, Tower A Income-Tax, Circle- 6(2)(1) Urmi Estate Mumbai 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel West, Mumbai – 400 013 PAN/GIR No.AAHCS6078Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Manish Kanth Revenue by Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya Date of Hearing 21/02/2019 Date of Pronouncement 20/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal is directed against the final order passe…

Wilhemsen Ship Management (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6913/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodwilhemsen Ship Management The Asst. Commissioner Of Income (India) Private Limited, Tax Officer, 8)(1), 31/32, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. “Apple Heritage”, Sir M.V. Road Mumbai 20 Andheir (West) Mumbai-400 093 Pan – Aaaci1614H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…the AE transactions and not for entire turnover, therein relied on the following judicial pronouncements : (i) Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1(1), Mumbai. (2012), 28 Taxman.com 142 (Mum). (ii) CIT-1, Mumbai Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 73 (Bom). (iii) The CIT-1, Mumbai Vs. Alstom Projects India Ltd. (ITA No. 362 of 2014; dated 14.09.2016) (Bom). (iv) The CIT-8, Mumbai Vs. Phoenix Mecanno (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (ITA No. 1182 of 2014; dated 07.06.2017)) (Bom). (v) The CIT-8 Vs. Petro Araldite Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 1804 of 2013; dated 24.11.2015)(Bom) 8. Apart therefrom, it was submitte…

ACIT 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Food Solutions India P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5781/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5781/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Income Tax-13(2)(1) Private Limited बनाम/ 1Stfloor, Gemstar Commercial Complex Room No.146, 1St Floor Vs. Ramchandra Lane Extension Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai -400 020 Mumbai-400 064 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5707/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax-13(2)(1) बनाम/ 1Stfloor, Gemstar Commercial Complex Room No.146, 1St Floor Ramchandra Lane Extension Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai -400 020 Mumbai-400 064 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Nimesh Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rignesh Das, Ld. JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Mumbai Tribunal 55 SOT 497 as Ltd. Vs ACIT approved by Bombay High Court in revenue’s appeal 381 ITR 413] 4. Hindustan Unilever Ltd Vs ACIT Mumbai Tribunal 22 ITR(T) 737 as approved by Bombay High Court in revenue’s appeal 394 ITR 73] Respectfully following the same, we find no infirmity in the stand of Ld. CIT(A) in granting the benefit of proportionate adjustment to the assessee by holding that entity level TNMM could not be applied to all the transactions / cost base on gross basis as a whole and the same was to be applied on proportionate basis to international transactio…

Sodexo Food Solutions India P .Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5707/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5781/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Sodexo Food Solutions India Income Tax-13(2)(1) Private Limited बनाम/ 1Stfloor, Gemstar Commercial Complex Room No.146, 1St Floor Vs. Ramchandra Lane Extension Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai -400 020 Mumbai-400 064 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5707/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sodexo Food Solutions India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax-13(2)(1) बनाम/ 1Stfloor, Gemstar Commercial Complex Room No.146, 1St Floor Ramchandra Lane Extension Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Kanchpada, Malad(W) Mumbai -400 020 Mumbai-400 064 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacr-2547-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Nimesh Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rignesh Das, Ld. JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Mumbai Tribunal 55 SOT 497 as Ltd. Vs ACIT approved by Bombay High Court in revenue’s appeal 381 ITR 413] 4. Hindustan Unilever Ltd Vs ACIT Mumbai Tribunal 22 ITR(T) 737 as approved by Bombay High Court in revenue’s appeal 394 ITR 73] Respectfully following the same, we find no infirmity in the stand of Ld. CIT(A) in granting the benefit of proportionate adjustment to the assessee by holding that entity level TNMM could not be applied to all the transactions / cost base on gross basis as a whole and the same was to be applied on proportionate basis to international transactio…

Giesecke & Devrient India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5924/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-5924/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Giesecke & Devrient India vs DCIT Pvt. Ltd. Circle-12(1), Corporate Office, Plot #57, Central Revenue Building Sector-44 New Delhi Gurgaon PAN : AABCG4223D Assessee by Sh. Harpreet Ajmani, Adv., Sh. Rohan Khare, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 24.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement 23.08.2018 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This present appeal by the assessee is preferred agains…

Saboo Sodium Chloro Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 32(2)

…nance Act, 2001. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. British Motor Co. Ltd. 300 ITR 337 (Del.) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., 394 ITR 73 (Bom.). 3 M/s. Saboo Sodium Chloro Ltd., Jaipur. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that as per the existing provisions of section 32(2) applicable for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 the unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward and set off upto 8 years. 4.…

Bfil Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5729/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…7-98 to 2000-01 and not directing the AO to 5729/M/14 quantify the amount of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation to be carried forward for set off against the income of subsequent years. Before us,the AR relied upon the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd (394 ITR 73)and the DR supported the order of the FAA. 5.1.We find that the honorable jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd (supra)has dealt with the same issue,that in the cases of Schott glass India Private Ltd. (ITA/867/Mum/2015-AY.2010-11,dated,08/03/2017),New Holland Fiat (I) Private Ltd. (ITA/ 7574/Mum/2012-AY.2008-09,dated,03/…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vijay Vision P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4961/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer -13(3)(3) V. M/S. Vijay Vision Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 227 Spec House, Ramchandra 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Lane Extension, Malad (W), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai-400 020 Pan No: Aaacv 2144 B

For Appellant: Shri Nitin SardaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer -13(3)(3) v. M/s. Vijay Vision Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 227 Spec House, Ramchandra 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Lane Extension, Malad (W), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai-400 020 PAN NO: AAACV 2144 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nitin Sarda Department by : Shri Ram Tiwari Date of Hearing : 08.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the L…

ITO 5(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Hardcastle Restaurants P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 966/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 966/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Income Tax Officer 5(1)(4) Hardcastle Restaurants Private Limited R.No.569, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ 1001-1002,10Th Floor, Tower-3 M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Indiabulls Finance Centre Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road Mumbai-400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafh-1333-H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shree Kumar Kabra,Ld. Ar Revenue By : M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shree Kumar Kabra,Ld. ARFor Respondent: M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…unal vide ITA No.4448/Mum/2015 order dated 15/06/2017 where the revenue’s appeal has been dismissed by following the ratio of above cited judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. Further, our jurisdictional Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. [72 Taxmann.com 325 26/07/2016] has confirmed the similar stand of Tribunal by not admitting the substantial question of law. The ratio of the decision of Hindustan Lever Ltd. has further been followed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Hickson & Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 1493 of 2014 dated 28/02/2017]. ITA.No.966/Mum/2016 Hardcastle Restaurants Private…

ITO 11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Schott Glass Inida P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1867/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Aliasgar Rampurwala-ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar -DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई “केकेकेके ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1867/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /AY.: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax Officer-11(2)(1)…

Cornell Overseas P Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result Ground No 4 of the additional grounds raised by the appellant is allowed

ITA 1158/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishicornell Overseas P Ltd, Dcit, C-1, Panchsheel Enclave, Circle-3(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacc0034F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Raj, Sr. DR
Section 143

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cornell Overseas P Ltd, DCIT, C-1, Panchsheel Enclave, Circle-3(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AAACC0034F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mrs. Vandana Bhandari, CA Revenue by: Sh. Amit Raj, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/07/2016 Date of pronouncement 24/10/2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Assessing Officer dated 26.09.2014 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The assessee has raised the fo…