Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

ITO 3(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Watermark Systems (I) P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

…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”.…

ACIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Charak Pharma P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5544/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit-6(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Charak Pharma Pvt. R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 21, 2Nd Floor, Evergreen Road, Mumbai-400020. Indl. Estate, Shakti Mills Lane, Dr. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400011. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc4014A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Krupa Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai Dated 16.06.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding The Ao’S Action Of Re-Opening The Assessment For Ay 2010-11 Was Bad In Law, Since It Was Based On Change Of Opinion.

…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 7 A.Y. 2010-11 Charak Pharma Pvt. Ltd. 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.…

Dy CIT CC 1 (4), Mumbai vs. M/S Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Now Merged Eith Grasim Industries Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…ssee to make full and true disclosure of all material facts relevant for the purpose of framing assessment. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B. Wadkar reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bom). Hence, by applying the proviso to Section 147 of the Act we hold that the reopening u/s.147 deserves to be quashed on this count also. 3.7. Further, we find that the ld. AO in the reasons recorded and in the re-assessment proceedings had only sought to examine the very same claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act on a new facet. In this r…

Grasim Industries Ltd (Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 1 (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…ssee to make full and true disclosure of all material facts relevant for the purpose of framing assessment. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B. Wadkar reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bom). Hence, by applying the proviso to Section 147 of the Act we hold that the reopening u/s.147 deserves to be quashed on this count also. 3.7. Further, we find that the ld. AO in the reasons recorded and in the re-assessment proceedings had only sought to examine the very same claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act on a new facet. In this r…

Grasim Industries Ltd (Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 1 (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…ssee to make full and true disclosure of all material facts relevant for the purpose of framing assessment. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B. Wadkar reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bom). Hence, by applying the proviso to Section 147 of the Act we hold that the reopening u/s.147 deserves to be quashed on this count also. 3.7. Further, we find that the ld. AO in the reasons recorded and in the re-assessment proceedings had only sought to examine the very same claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act on a new facet. In this r…

Grasim Industries Ltd (Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 1 (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…ssee to make full and true disclosure of all material facts relevant for the purpose of framing assessment. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B. Wadkar reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bom). Hence, by applying the proviso to Section 147 of the Act we hold that the reopening u/s.147 deserves to be quashed on this count also. 3.7. Further, we find that the ld. AO in the reasons recorded and in the re-assessment proceedings had only sought to examine the very same claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act on a new facet. In this r…

Dy CIT CC 1 (4), Mumbai vs. M/S Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd ( Now Merged With Grasim Industrial Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…ssee to make full and true disclosure of all material facts relevant for the purpose of framing assessment. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd., vs. R.B. Wadkar reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bom). Hence, by applying the proviso to Section 147 of the Act we hold that the reopening u/s.147 deserves to be quashed on this count also. 3.7. Further, we find that the ld. AO in the reasons recorded and in the re-assessment proceedings had only sought to examine the very same claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act on a new facet. In this r…

ITO 8(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Sentia Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10

…o make fishing inquiries: have held that no reopening can be done to make fishing inquiries: have held that no reopening can be done to make fishing inquiries: 1. Bhor Industries Ltd. v/s. ACIT hor Industries Ltd. v/s. ACIT-[(2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bom)] [(2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom)] 2. Hindutan Lever Ltd. v/s. R. B. Wadkar, 2. Hindutan Lever Ltd. v/s. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT-[(2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom)] 3. Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v/s. Dy. CIT [(2004) 269 ITR 186 Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v/s. Dy. CIT [(2004) 269 ITR 186 (Bom)] 4. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v/s. ACIT 4. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v/s. ACIT-[(2004) 267 ITR 200 (Bom…

General Electric Company, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

…y concluded that the learned Assessing Officer had not complied with the proviso to section 147 of the Act. Similar matter came up for adjudication before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar reported in 268 ITR 332 wherein it was 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 Asse…

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

…y concluded that the learned Assessing Officer had not complied with the proviso to section 147 of the Act. Similar matter came up for adjudication before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar reported in 268 ITR 332 wherein it was 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 Asse…

Deepak Srichand Bathija, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deepak Srichand Bathija बिधम/ Nfac, Delhi 5-B, Elegant Apartment, 3, Room No. 356 C.R. Vs. Sobhani Road, Cuffe Building, New Delhi- Parade, Mumbai-400005. 110002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapb6001A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Shri Vaibhav Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 25.08.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Filed Eleven (11) Grounds, However, At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 1 Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Reopening Of The Assessment Made By The Ao U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Without Satisfying The Condition Precedents U/S 147 Of The Act. Since It Is A Legal Issue We Would Like To Adjudicate The Same First.

…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”.…

ITO 3(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Omega Investment & Properties Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.868/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer 3(2) (4) बिधम/ M/S. Omega Investment & Room No. 673,6Th Floor, Properties Ltd Vs. 32-B, Jolly Maker Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, No.2 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai- 400020. 400021. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco0978L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By: Mr. Asif Karmani, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

…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 11 AY 2007-08 M/s Omega Investment and Properties 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 reco…

Rajnish Chamanlal Bharti, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(3)/30(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5826/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shri Rajnish C. Bharti बिधम/ Ito-24(2)(3)/30(2)(3) 506B, Rajendra Vihar Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai. Vs. Evershine Nagar, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpb6150F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C. V. Jain Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22 /11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-41, Mumbai Dated 03.08.2016 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. On The Facts, In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Ld Cit (A)] Has Erred In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. A.0) Without Having Any Lawful Jurisdiction As- A. There Were No Cogent Reasons To Believe That The Income Had Escaped Assessment & Accordingly The Provisions Of Section 147 & 148 Were Not Applicable To The Case

…ave to adjudicate the legal issue as to whether the AO had satisfied the condition precedent for validly reopen the assessment, we have to examine the “reasons recorded” as such (supra). 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”.…