Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

268 ITR 332High Court2004#77 most cited

What is Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar authority for?

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

695

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hindustan Lever Ltd v R.B. Wadkar · Section 147 · Section 148 · reasons recorded · reassessment validity · improving reasons · beyond four years · mere change of opinion · escapement of income · first proviso section 147

Also reported as

137 Taxmann 479

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 153ASection 132Section 153DSection 68

Issues it is cited on

section 158bdfirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentincome tax settlement commissionfull and true disclosuresection 144afresh tangible materialkelvinatorbeyond four yearsmere change of opinionescapement of incomelive link

Judgments citing Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle -1, Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 69/GTY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Dutta, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ty of the same to the case on hand which shows lack of jurisprudence on the part of the ld. CIT(A). 10. Our views are fortified by the series of the decisions as discussed hereinafter. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT 268 ITR 332 wherein the Hon’ble our has held that the notice was clearly beyond the period of four years. The reasons recorded by I.T.A. No. 67/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 68/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 I.T.A. No. 69/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. 6 the Assessing Officer nowhere stated that there was…

M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle -1, Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 68/GTY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Dutta, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ty of the same to the case on hand which shows lack of jurisprudence on the part of the ld. CIT(A). 10. Our views are fortified by the series of the decisions as discussed hereinafter. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT 268 ITR 332 wherein the Hon’ble our has held that the notice was clearly beyond the period of four years. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere stated that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary I.T.A. No. 67/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 68/GTY/2023 Assessment…

M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle -1, Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 67/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Dutta, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ty of the same to the case on hand which shows lack of jurisprudence on the part of the ld. CIT(A). 10. Our views are fortified by the series of the decisions as discussed hereinafter. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT 268 ITR 332 wherein the Hon’ble our has held that the notice was clearly beyond the period of four years. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere stated that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary I.T.A. No. 67/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 68/GTY/2023 Assessment…

M/S. Saraff Jewels & Co., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-33(1). Kolkata., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 651/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “एसएमसी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 651/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Saraff Jewels & Co. Vs. ITO, Ward-33(1), Kolkata (PAN: AARFS 6807 L) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 09.08.2023 क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 31.08.2023 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Shri Sunil Surana, A.R "नधा"/रती क$ ओर से For the Respondent/ Shri Altaf Hussai…

Sky Gem, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 787/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…elieve that income has escaped assessment. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has while examining the case of re-opening assessment in a case where assessment was previously framed under Section 143(3) of the Act in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Badkar 268 ITR 332 (Bom)., held as under: “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that ITA No.787-790/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2013-14 assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons a…

Basavraj Siddappa Bhavikatti, Belgavi vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Belagavi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 206/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.205 & 206/PAN./2018 Assessment Years 2006-2007 & 2009-2010 Shri Basavaraj Siddappa The Income Tax Officer, Bhavikatti, 102, 3rd Main, Ward – 2 (2), Income Tax 8th Cross, Basaveshwara Offices, Feroz Khimjibhai vs. Layout 2nd stage, Near Complex, Opp. Civil Chandra Layout Bus Hospital, Dr. B.R. Depot, Bengaluru-560040. Ambedkar Road, Belagavi Karnataka PIN – 590 001. PAN ACNPB0135E Karnataka. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee…

Basavraj Siddappa Bhavikatti, Belgavi vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Belagavi

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 205/PAN/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.205 & 206/PAN./2018 Assessment Years 2006-2007 & 2009-2010 Shri Basavaraj Siddappa The Income Tax Officer, Bhavikatti, 102, 3rd Main, Ward – 2 (2), Income Tax 8th Cross, Basaveshwara Offices, Feroz Khimjibhai vs. Layout 2nd stage, Near Complex, Opp. Civil Chandra Layout Bus Hospital, Dr. B.R. Depot, Bengaluru-560040. Ambedkar Road, Belagavi Karnataka PIN – 590 001. PAN ACNPB0135E Karnataka. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee…

Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 505/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd V. Acit – 3(2)(2) 20Th Floor, Nirmal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacn5438N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Surinder Mehra Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade & Shri Chetan Kacha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 37(1)

…the C.I.T.(A) has erred in not following the following decisions:- 1) IPCA Laboratories Vs. DCIT 251 ITR 416,419 (Bom) 2) Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. DCIT 266 ITR 566,572 (Bom) 3) Grindwell Norton Vs. ACIT 267 ITR 673, 676 (Bom) 4) Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. ACIT 268 ITR 332, 334 (Bom) 5) Supreme Treves Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Bom) 6) Rajeshwar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. VITO 450 ITR 108 (Bom) 7) Manan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 449 ITR 587 (Bom) 8) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC) 9) Garden Silk Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT 222 ITR 27, 29, 30 (Gujarat) 10) CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 48…

Shrimati Amarjit Kaur W/O Bugar Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Mansa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 49

…opening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons so recorded, nor anything can be deleted from the reasons so recorded. Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332/137 Taxmann 479 , has, inter alia, observed that " It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn on the basis of reasons not recorded. It is for the AO to disclose and…

M/S Atul Projects India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-9(1)(2)(Now Jurisdiction With Dc CC-(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 111/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Naresh Jain & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…imperative on the part of the assessing officer to show that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for his assessment. It has been held so by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Level (268 ITR 332). “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substituti…

Satyamurti Ramasundar, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 371/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Satyamurti Ramasunder, Acit, D-502, Ivy Complex, Circle 4(1), Vs. Sushant Lok, 1-Blocka, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana). (Pan: Aaapr0741H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi & Arta Trana Panda, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Satyamurti Ramasunder, ACIT, D-502, IVY Complex, Circle 4(1), Vs. Sushant Lok, 1-BlockA, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana). (PAN: AAAPR0741H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Satyen Sethi & Arta Trana Panda, Advs. Respondent by : Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the orde…

Jt. CIT (Ods) - CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…disclose material facts in the reasons, it can be inferred that there is none. It is well settled that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer should speak for itself. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. ACIT [268 ITR 332 (Bom)] has held as under: - “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assess…

Ultra Tech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…disclose material facts in the reasons, it can be inferred that there is none. It is well settled that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer should speak for itself. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. ACIT [268 ITR 332 (Bom)] has held as under: - “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assess…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…disclose material facts in the reasons, it can be inferred that there is none. It is well settled that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer should speak for itself. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. ACIT [268 ITR 332 (Bom)] has held as under: - “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assess…

M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…disclose material facts in the reasons, it can be inferred that there is none. It is well settled that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer should speak for itself. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. ACIT [268 ITR 332 (Bom)] has held as under: - “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assess…

M/S Wf Asian Smaller Companies Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr
Section 133CSection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 92E

…r re-opening the assessment, are to be examined on a stand-alone basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded, nor can anything be deleted from the reason so recorded. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) has inter alia observed that “……it is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn on the basis of reasons not recorded by him. He has to speak through the reasons”.…

Godavari Biorefineries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5824/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Godavari Biorefineries Ltd. A C I T - 2(1)(2) 3Rd Floor, Somaiya Bhavan Room No. 561, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 45/47 M.G. Road, Fort M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aabcg2543C Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Vipul Doshi & Ms. Dinkle Haria Respondent By: Shri Ram K. Kedia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Doshi & Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Ram K. Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…fully spelt out in the reasons recorded, it is fatal and same deserved to the set aside. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ipca Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT 251 ITR 416, Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT 268 ITR 339 and German Remedies Ltd. vs. DCIT 287 ITR 494. He also referred to several other judicial precedents on that issue. 8 M/s. Godavari Biorefineries Ltd. 12. On merits it was submitted that as per letter dated 09.06.2006 the renewal of recognition to the in-house R&D Unit of the assessee at Ahmednagar is allowed up to 31.03.2009 and to another in-h…

Boston Scientific International Bv the Netherlands, Netherland vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay petition of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 789/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshboston Scientific International Vs. Acit, Bv The Netherlands, Circle-1(1)(2), 100A, The Capital Court Oiof International Taxation, Palm Marg Munirka, Delhi- New Delhi 110067 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb4238J Sa No. 152/Del/2023 (In Ita No. 789/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Boston Scientific International Vs. Acit, Bv The Netherlands, Circle-1(1)(2), 100A, The Capital Court Oiof International Taxation, Palm Marg Munirka, Delhi- New Delhi 110067 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb4238J

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 40

…absolutely no whisper of the failure committed by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the purpose of assessment. In this regard, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs R.B. Wadkar reported in 268 ITR 339 (Bom) had categorically held that reasons recorded by the ld AO should speak for itself and there cannot be any substitution by way of addition or deletion thereon. The relevant operative portion of the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is reproduced as under:- “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was f…

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Philips India Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1939/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘‘बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1285/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Philips India Ltd. (Formerly Vs. ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Philips Electronics India Ltd. ) (PAN: AABCP 9487 A) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") I.T.A. No. 1939/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Vs. M/s Philips India Ltd. (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd. ) (PAN: AABC…

M/S Philips India Limited (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1285/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘‘बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1285/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Philips India Ltd. (Formerly Vs. ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Philips Electronics India Ltd. ) (PAN: AABCP 9487 A) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") I.T.A. No. 1939/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Vs. M/s Philips India Ltd. (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd. ) (PAN: AABC…