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.

How many judgments cite Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar?

695 judgments on BharatTax cite Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 153C, Section 153A, Section 132.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332)

Maxtech Realty Pvt. Ltd(Formerly Known As Nandivardhan Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-2, Thane

ITA 690/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153(3)Section 153ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM I.T.A. No. 690/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mextech Realty Private DCIT Cen. Cir. 2, Thane 6th floor, Room No. 13, A-Wing, Limited (formerly known as nandivardhan Construction Pvt. Ashar IT Park, Thane-400604. Ltd.) 201, Oasis Silver Stone, Vs. Ram Maruti Road Near Gajanan Maharaj Temple, Thane- 400602 PAN No. AACCN1260G Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain, Ld. ARs Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR Date of Hearing : 04.05.2023 Date of Pronouncem…

Mr Sachin Changedia, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/PUN/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.51/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-11 Mr.Sachin Changedia, The Income Tax Officer, Sumangalya Hospital, Vs Ward-1, Ahmednagar. Burudgaon Road, Near Hotel Chankya, Ahmednagar – 414001. Pan: Aecpc 2277 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Shashank Deogadkar – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)(Nfac)[Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 25.11.2021 For A.Y.2010-11Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Dated 28.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1 Re-Assessment Order Passed U/S.L43(3)R.W.S.L47 Dated 28-12-2018 Is Invalid & Bad In Law For The Following Reasons: (I) Notice U/S 143(2) Not Served: Notice U/S 143(2) Was Not Mr.Sachin Changedia [A]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…re was escapement of any income in the reasons recorded; therefore, the reopening is quashed. We find support from the observations of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. 6.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has observed in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bombay), as under : Quote, “ It is for the Assessing Officer to form his opinion. It is for him to put his opinion on record in black and white. The reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons recorded must disclose his mind. Reasons are the manifestation of mind of the Assessing Officer…

Eci Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 968/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…reopening reason has placed reliance on the assessee's books only regarding "reversal on account of cancellation and price revision. (supra)". We therefore quote Hon'ble Bombay High Cou:-:'s landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. R.B. Wadekar (2014) 268 ITR 332 (Born) that an Assessing Officer's reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis; as it is, without any scope of further m:rovement at a later stage by way of addition, deletio:a or- substitution therein. We thus quote that to conclude that the impugned reopening has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A) as a mere change of opinion only. All…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Eci Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…reopening reason has placed reliance on the assessee's books only regarding "reversal on account of cancellation and price revision. (supra)". We therefore quote Hon'ble Bombay High Cou:-:'s landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. R.B. Wadekar (2014) 268 ITR 332 (Born) that an Assessing Officer's reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis; as it is, without any scope of further m:rovement at a later stage by way of addition, deletio:a or- substitution therein. We thus quote that to conclude that the impugned reopening has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A) as a mere change of opinion only. All…

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…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. 2.6 Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [(2004) 268 ITR 332], has 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 open his mind through the rea…

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…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. 2.6 Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [(2004) 268 ITR 332], has 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 open his mind through the rea…

M/S. J S Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-12(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 to 9 pertaining to the merits of the matter are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 2097/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S L JainFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkarni

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s J.S. Realty Pvt. Ltd., 501/531 Laxmi Mall, New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400053 [PAN: AACCJ5732H] …………… Appellant Income Tax Officer Vs Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Respondent ……………. Mumbai - 400021 Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri S L Jain For the Respondent/Department : Ms. Vranda U Matkarni Date Conclusion of hearing : 24.01.2023 Pronouncement of order : 21.04.2023 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: By way o…

Glen Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2752/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…Vs.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2020] 424 ITR 607(SC) 15. M/s. Anand Developers Vs. ACIT & Anr., Writ Petition No. 17 of 2020 dated 18.02.2020. 16. S.S. Landmarks Vs. ITO [2020] 117 taxmann.com 825 (Bom) 17. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar: [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom) 18. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hughes Escorts Communications, [2009] 311 ITR 253 (Delhi) 19. Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Vs. Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd., [2014] 368 ITR 680 (Delhi) 20. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd., I.T.A. No.2752/Del/2018 5 (2009] 318 ITR 347 (Delhi). 7. Per contra, ld. DR re…

M/S. Gokuldas Exports, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1062/BANG/2004[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Gokaldas Exports Vs. Dcit, Circle - 11(2) (Presently Gokaldas Exports Ltd.) Bengaluru No. 25, 2Nd Cross, 3Rd Main Industrial Suburb, Yashwanthpur Bengaluru 560022 Pan – Aaacg8239J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bangalore Dated 31.03.2004 For Ay 1995-06. This Is The Third Round Of Proceedings Before The Tribunal In Pursuant Of The Judgement Of The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In Ita No. 635 Of 2016 Order Dated 19.07.2022 Which Is Placed On Record On Pages 164 To 176 Of The Paper Book.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…v. ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC) ii) ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) iii) Sitara Diamond (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2012) 345 ITR 91 (Bom.) iv) Multiscreen Media (P.) Ltd v. UOI (2010) 324 ITR 48 (Bombay) v) Hindustan Level Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) vi) CIT v. Ankit C Maheshwari (2014) 366 ITR 146 (Guj.) vii) CIT v. Hewlett Packard Digital Global Soft Ltd. in ITA No. 406/2007 dated 19.09.2011 viii) CIT v. M/s. Fibres & Fabrics Internationa! Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 310/2015 dated 22.09.2015 ix) ACIT v. Kotarki Constructions Pvt. Ltd, in W.P. No. 842 of 2018 dated 30.03.2021 x) CIT v. Moto…

State Bank of India (Successor to Erstwhile State Bank of Indore, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1053/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shriaby T Varkey & Shri Om Prakash Kantआयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1053/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-(2)(2)(1) State Bank Of India (Successor To Erstwhile Mumbai-400020. Vs. State Bank Of Indore), State Bank Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, Frt, Department, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Nilu Jaggi (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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”.…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Vimal Chand Surana(HUF), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 62/JPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 150(2)Section 153CSection 2Section 250Section 69

…is clear that, while justifying the reopening of an assessment, the Assessing officer is bound to prima facie consider only the recorded reasons for re- assessment. 3) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. V. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bombay HC) observed that “It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. It is for the Assessing Officer to disclose and…