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

Income Tax Officerm Ward-Dimapur, Dimapur vs. Shri Bhama Agarwalla, Dimapur

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 142/GTY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…1 Ankit Agarwalla, AY 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GAUHATI BENCH, “VIRTUAL HEARING” AT KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 140/GAU/2020 Assessment Yeas: 2011-12 Income-tax Officer, Ward-Dimapur Vs. Shri Ankit Agarwalla, Nagaland (PAN: AFHPA7238J) Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 141/GAU/2020 Assessment Yeas: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Shri Sanwarmall Agarwalla, Dimapur Circle-Dimapur (PAN: ABZPA6349L) Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 142/GAU/2020 Assessment Yeas: 2011-12 Income-tax Officer, Ward-Dimapur Vs. Shri Bhama Agarwal…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Dimapur, Dimapur vs. Shri Sanwarmall Agarwalla, Dimapur

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 141/GTY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…1 Ankit Agarwalla, AY 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GAUHATI BENCH, “VIRTUAL HEARING” AT KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 140/GAU/2020 Assessment Yeas: 2011-12 Income-tax Officer, Ward-Dimapur Vs. Shri Ankit Agarwalla, Nagaland (PAN: AFHPA7238J) Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 141/GAU/2020 Assessment Yeas: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Shri Sanwarmall Agarwalla, Dimapur Circle-Dimapur (PAN: ABZPA6349L) Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 142/GAU/2020 Assessment Yeas: 2011-12 Income-tax Officer, Ward-Dimapur Vs. Shri Bhama Agarwal…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dimapur, Dimapur vs. Shri Ankit Agarwalla, Dimapur

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 140/GTY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

…1 Ankit Agarwalla, AY 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GAUHATI BENCH, “VIRTUAL HEARING” AT KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 140/GAU/2020 Assessment Yeas: 2011-12 Income-tax Officer, Ward-Dimapur Vs. Shri Ankit Agarwalla, Nagaland (PAN: AFHPA7238J) Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 141/GAU/2020 Assessment Yeas: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Shri Sanwarmall Agarwalla, Dimapur Circle-Dimapur (PAN: ABZPA6349L) Appellant Respondent & I.T.A. No. 142/GAU/2020 Assessment Yeas: 2011-12 Income-tax Officer, Ward-Dimapur Vs. Shri Bhama Agarwal…

Pkc Securities, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-35(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2399/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 151

…ITA No.2399/Kol/2019 PKC Securities A.Y. 2011-12 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM and Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 2399/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 PKC Securities Vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata (PAN: AALFP 2666 C) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 28.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement 10.02.2021 For the Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, A.R For the Respondent Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri A. T. Varkey, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-10, Kol…

DCIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. V2 Retail Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and C

ITA 724/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.724/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit, Circle-10(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S V2 Retail Ltd. Plot- No.8, Pocket-2, Block-A, Rangpuri Extensions, Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcv5632P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O No.11/Kol/2020 (In I.T.A No.724/Kol/2018) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S V2 Retail Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-10(2), Kolkata Plot- No.8, Pocket-2, Block-A, Rangpuri Extensions, Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcv5632P (Cross-Objector) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Manish Kanojia, Dr Respondent By : Shri K. K. Chhaparia, Fca & Nirav Sheth, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Arising Out Of The Order Dated 20.03.2015 Passed

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kanojia, DRFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Chhaparia, FCA & Nirav Sheth, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…t year in question. Thus the reassessment proceeding is bad in law and liable to be quashed as argued by the Ld. AR. 4. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar reported in (2004) 268 ITR 332 (2004) (Bombay) and judgment passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Assam Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 275 ITR 609(Gauhati). 5. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied upon the reasons so recorded on 20.03.14 as also reflected on the same at page 56 of the paper-book. According to him, since such recording of the re…

M/S. Ue Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2381/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Packard Digital Global Solutions Ltd., ITA No. 406 of 2007, judgment dated 19.09.2011, wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court after making a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxmann 479 (Bom.) observed as follows:— "7. It is observed in the said judgment that the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer no where 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 for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his m…

Hbn Netowrk P.Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee in ground No. 1, 2 is allowed

ITA 3012/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3012/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3012/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) The Dy. Commissioner of HBN Networks Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, 15(3)(2), (Formally known as Mumbai, Telebrands India Pvt. Ltd) बिधम/ Pin- Plot No. A-168, Road No. Vs. 25, MIDC Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-400 604 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAAC2824J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by Dr. K. Shivaram, AR : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri R. Bhoopathi, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28…

ACIT, Central Circle - 4(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Grd Commodities Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2277/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] It(Ss)A Nos.120 To123/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…for reopening the assessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons recorded, nor anything be deleted from the reasons recorded. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [(2004) 268 ITR 332], 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 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 reasons recorded by him…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1005/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…for reopening the assessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons recorded, nor anything be deleted from the reasons recorded. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [(2004) 268 ITR 332], 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 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 reasons recorded by him…

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

ITA 1826/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 68

…1 A.Y 2009-10 M/s. Alembic Merchants P.Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM and Hon’ble Shri A. T. Varkey, JM Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd PAN: AACCA 0918Q Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 22-09.2020, 01.10.2020 &16.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement 20.11.2020 For the Appellant Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Ld. Sr. DR For the Respondent Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA, Ld.AR ORDER Shri A. T. Varkey, JM This is an appeal preferred by the reve…

Shri Tyrone Patrick Lemos, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2414/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2414/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…ion 2(22)(e) of the Act de hors the cause of action manifested under s. 148(2) of the Act. This view finds support from plethora of decision including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Bai v. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 696 (SC); Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.), East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1981) 128 ITR 326 (Cal.). Hence, the additions made by the AO towards deemed income under s.2(22)(e) of the Act, being extraneous to reasons recorded, requires to be struck down on this score itself. 9. Adverting further, there is yet another reason to impugn the action of AO. It is an admitted posi…

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 7277/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…sons as to which “material facts” were not disclosed, which it is submitted, he ought to have mentioned – for this proposition, the assessee places reliance on the following decisions: i)Motor Industries Co Ltd – 11 SOT 478 (Bang-Trib) ii)Hindustan Lever Ltd –268 ITR 332 (Bom) 8.2. The third argument of the ld AR to support the quashing of the proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act was that there was complete non-application of mind by AO while recording the reasons to believe. The ld AR referred the first para of the reasons recorded by AO wherein it is stated by the AO that “The above mentioned assessee has…

DCIT Central Circle-7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Wellknown Polysters Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1388/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…sons as to which “material facts” were not disclosed, which it is submitted, he ought to have mentioned – for this proposition, the assessee places reliance on the following decisions: i)Motor Industries Co Ltd – 11 SOT 478 (Bang-Trib) ii)Hindustan Lever Ltd –268 ITR 332 (Bom) 8.2. The third argument of the ld AR to support the quashing of the proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act was that there was complete non-application of mind by AO while recording the reasons to believe. The ld AR referred the first para of the reasons recorded by AO wherein it is stated by the AO that “The above mentioned assessee has…

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 7276/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…sons as to which “material facts” were not disclosed, which it is submitted, he ought to have mentioned – for this proposition, the assessee places reliance on the following decisions: i)Motor Industries Co Ltd – 11 SOT 478 (Bang-Trib) ii)Hindustan Lever Ltd –268 ITR 332 (Bom) 8.2. The third argument of the ld AR to support the quashing of the proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act was that there was complete non-application of mind by AO while recording the reasons to believe. The ld AR referred the first para of the reasons recorded by AO wherein it is stated by the AO that “The above mentioned assessee has…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2396/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(40)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “ए” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “VIRTUAL COURT A” KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.2396/Kol/2019 & C.O.No.48/Kol/2019 (a/o ITA No.2396/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of M/s Gaurav Rose Real Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Estate Pvt. Ltd., C/o G K Aayakar Bhawan, 6th Floor, Steels, Sagar Estates, 2, N.C. Diutta Sarani, 4th P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 Floor, Unit-3, Dalhousie, Kolkata-700 001 बनाम M/s Gaurav Rose Real / Estate Pvt. Ltd., C/o G K V/s. Steels,…

M/S Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 553/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ns of Jamanalal Kabra reported in 69 ITR 461 (All.), Equitable investment Vs. CIT reported in 174 ITR 714 (Cal) and N.D. Bhat VS. IBM reported in 216 ITR 811 (Bom). In the case of Hindustan Lever Limited V.R.B. Wadkar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 268 ITR 332, the Bombay High Court in its decision at page 338 it has been held 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 mode to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded.…

M/S.Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ns of Jamanalal Kabra reported in 69 ITR 461 (All.), Equitable investment Vs. CIT reported in 174 ITR 714 (Cal) and N.D. Bhat VS. IBM reported in 216 ITR 811 (Bom). In the case of Hindustan Lever Limited V.R.B. Wadkar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 268 ITR 332, the Bombay High Court in its decision at page 338 it has been held 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 mode to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded.…

Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2182/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Packard Digital Global Solutions Ltd., ITA No. 406 of 2007, judgment dated 19.09.2011, wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court after making a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxmann 479 (Bom.) observed as follows:— "7. It is observed in the said judgment that the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer no where 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 for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his m…

M/S Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2181/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Packard Digital Global Solutions Ltd., ITA No. 406 of 2007, judgment dated 19.09.2011, wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court after making a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxmann 479 (Bom.) observed as follows:— "7. It is observed in the said judgment that the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer no where 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 for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his m…

M/S. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5798/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs DCIT, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/o Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, KLJ Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. PAN: AABCS2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed agai…