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 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 367,164 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 147 Section 148 Section 153C Section 153A Section 132 Section 153D Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 158bd first proviso to section 147 material facts necessary for assessment income tax settlement commission full and true disclosure section 144a fresh tangible material kelvinator beyond four years mere change of opinion escapement of income live link

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

Eagle Burgmann India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2323/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kesarwani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 195Section 40Section 9

…T [2014] 369 ITR 109 (Delhi)  CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 187 Taxman 312 (SC)  CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2013] 33 taxmann.com 535 (Bombay)  CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bombay)  Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT & Ors [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) 6. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, before re– opening the assessment, the Assessing Officer has recorded reason to believe indicating escapement of income. He submitted, such reason to believe was formed on the basis of tangible material available on record. He submitted, at the time of recording reasons it is not nec…

M/S. Mono Orion Food India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 2001/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…otice issued by him would be liable to he struck down as invalid.” 15. The reasons recorded cannot be supplemented while disposing off the objections for re-opening. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar reported in 268 ITR 332 held as follows: “Where an assessment under section 143(3) has been made for relevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reasons of failure on the part of the a…

M/S. Mono Orion Food India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 2000/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

M/S. Arati Engineering & Construction Co., Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2152/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2152/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri M. D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 40

…documents or affidavits etc must be able to make out a case for valid reopening and if not then the entire reopening would fail. For that we rely on the judgment of the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332:137 479 (Bom.), wherein it was held that reopening notice has to be justified on the basis of reasons recorded at the time of issuing the impugned notice. The impugned notice must stand or fail on the reasons recorded. These reasons recorded cannot be supplemented by further reasons or by filing an affidavit and/or making oral submission, otherwi…

Sunil Sudhir Kothari, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6111/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharmaआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6111/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09) बिधम/ Shri Sunil Sudhir Kothari, Dcit – Cc- 1(1) 21-Spring Field, 19-V, Old Cgo Bldg, Vs. Gandhi Road, Gamdevi, Pratistha Bhava, M.K Mumbai Road, Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpk3574H (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. अऩीराथी ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Anant N Pai, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H Ansari, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing 04/11/2019 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement 13/11 /2019

For Appellant: Shri Anant N Pai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H Ansari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…ssary for assessment. However, there is no such mention by the A.O either in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act nor in the reasons recorded for reopening. In terms of decision Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd, reported in 268 ITR 332, the reopening of the assessment is invalid when the notice is issued after 04 years in respect of assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 5. In view of the above discussion, I set aside reopening made by the A.O without point out any failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. IT…

Kanchan Gaurav Raimalani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4399/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarsmt. Kanchan Gaurav Raimalani, Acit - 19(3) 1605, Raheja Classique, Mumbai. Bldg. No.4, New Link Road, Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan: Ahapr0883M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal With Ms. Neha Paranjpe (Ars) Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (Sr. Dr)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal with Ms. Neha Paranjpe (ARs)For Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (Sr. DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…ore, the notice under section 148 is bad-in-law. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the 6 ITA No. 4399 Mum 2018-Smt. Kanchan Gaurav Raimalani. decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332). The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that in the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer must disclosed in the reasons as to which fact or material not disclosed by assessee fully and truly necessary for assessment for that Assessment Year so as to establish live link between the reasons and evidence. The ld. AR submits that the re-open…

Empee Holdings Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 1503/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…are disclosed to the assessee. For it is those reasons which form the foundation of the action of the Assessing Officer and form the basis on which the belief that income has escaped assessment is formed. Hindustan Lever Ltd v. R.B. Wadkar, Asstt. CIT [2004] 268 ITR 332/137 Taxman 479 (Bom.). 5. The judgments of the Supreme Court on the subject contain a clear elaboration of principle in which it has been held that an Assessing Officer acts within jurisdiction in reopening an assessment on the basis of information which comes to him after the original assessment and during the course of the assessment proceeding…

DCIT-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Jhawar Trade and Investment Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 6684/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am The Dcit-4(2)(2), Vs. M/S. Jhawar Trade & Room No.640, 6Th Floor Investment Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 285, Princess Street, C.J.House, 2Nd Floor M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8175E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.161/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6684/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S. Jhawar Trade & Vs. The Dcit-4(2)(2), Room No.640, 6Th Floor Investment Pvt. Ltd., 285, Princess Street, Aayakar Bhavan C.J.House, 2Nd Floor M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8175E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Akhtar Ansari Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Date Of Hearing 18/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 25/10/2019

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

…ent investigations or evidences. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble 6 ITA No.6684/Mum/2017 & CO No.161/Mum/2019 M/s. Jhawar Trade and Investment P. Ltd Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bom). 2.6. We hold that there is a conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess. The ld. AO had got power only to re- assess but the said re-assessment has to be based on the fulfilment of necessary ingredients of Section 147 of the Act that income of the assessee had escaped assessment which is supported by the tangible…

Oleofine Organics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee with regard to limited purpose of Ground No

ITA 5831/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Oleofine Organics Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (India) Pvt.Ltd. Of Income Tax, Circle-10(2) 101/B, Fine House Aayakar Bhavan Anandji Lane New Marine Lines Off. M.G. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai – 400 077 Pan/Gir No. Aaaco1352Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…ition or deletion to the reasons already recorded by the ld. AO. It is well settled that the reasons recorded by the ld. AO should speak for itself. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bom) had 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 Assessing…

M/S. Raghvi Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4565/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2005-06 Raghvi Finance Ltd. Vs. Ito 10, Community Centre-Ii, Ward-15(1) Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi 110 063 Pan Aaacr5879F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…eopening the assessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons recorded, nor can 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 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 h…

M/S. Styric Chem (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4233/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 151(1)Section 234ASection 68

…is that the assessee has received accommodation entry to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. In our considered opinion, the basis of reopening itself is based on wrong facts therefore, the same cannot be upheld. In Hindustan Lever Limited v. R.B. Wadkar, ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.), a Division Bench has enumerated the following conditions with respect to recording of reasons which should form the unimpeachable code for the Assessing Officers: 1. The reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer; 2. No substitution or deletion is permissible; 3. No additions can be made to those reason…

ACIT 20(1), Mumbai vs. Dhananjay G Mishra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1663/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit-20(1), Vs. Shri Dhananjay Mishra Room No.113, Unit No.29, Neelgiri 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers Industrial Estate Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 T.J.Road, Sewree (W) Mumbai – 400 015 Pan/Gir No. Aflpm1475K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(iv)

…y no mention by the ld. AO regarding the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the relevant information. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Liver Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 268 ITR 332 (Bom). We find that the reasons recorded by the 7 Shri Dhananjay G Mishra ld. AO does not even mention about the first re-assessment that had already been framed by his predecessor on 31/03/2015 which fact also had been noticed by the ld CITA while quashing the re-assessment. This goes to prove the clear non-application of mind by the ld. AO whi…

Aries Agro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.557,558 & 559/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year :2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Aries Agro Ltd Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Plot No. 24, Aries House 460, Aaykar Bhawan Deonar, Govandi M.K.Road Mumbai-400 043 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca5035G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts necessary for assessment. In this regard, he relied upon plethora of judicial precedents, including in the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited Vs ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 332. The assessee has relied upon following case laws:- “Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT [2004]-268 ITR 332 {Bom} Titanor Components vs. ACIT [2011]-60 DTR 273 {Bom} Sound Casting Pvt.Ltd vs. DCIT [2012] 250 CTR 119 {Bom} Sitara Diamond Pvt.Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 91 {Bom} Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. vs. DCIT [2012] 348 ITR 154 [Bom] Prashant Joshi vs.…

Mansukhbhai Dayalbhai Patel, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen. Circle-2, Surat

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

ITA 1780/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1780/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mansukhbhai Dayalbhai V. Assistant Commissioner Of Patel,(Sheta), Income Tax, Central 10 Shantiniketan Row House, Circle-2, Surat Anand Mahal Road Adajan, Surat. [Pan: Abcpp 1275 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri Sriniwas T. Bidari, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 27.08.2019 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…with Mansukhbhai D Patel v. ACIT-2, Surat /I.T.A. No.1780/AHD/2016/A.Y.2011-12 Page 11 of 21 other material as held by the Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S Joshi v. ITO 324 ITR 154 (Bombay) and Hindustan Lever Limited v. R V. Wadkar, ACIT 268 ITR 332 (Bombay). In the reasons recorded, it is also been mentioned that the extra consideration of Rs.11,65,31,847/- was paid in cash over and above the consideration of Rs.4,52,60,000/-. However, the copy of seized page of Satakhat/ saudachittihi from locker and scanned at Page No.3 of assessment order, does not mention that the amount was ever paid b…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Thane vs. Ostwal Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4397/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarito, Ward-2(5), M/S Ostwal Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 16, 6Th Floor, 201/1A, Ostwal Park, 2Nd Vs. Ashar It Park, Wagle Indl. Floor, Jesal Park, Bhayander Estate, Road No. 16Z, (W), 401105. Thane (W), 400604. Pan: Aaaco4853A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashish Pophare (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Shah (Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Pophare (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Shah (AR)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Ward-2(5), M/s Ostwal Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 16, 6th Floor, 201/1A, Ostwal Park, 2nd Vs. Ashar IT Park, Wagle Indl. Floor, Jesal Park, Bhayander Estate, Road No. 16Z, (W), 401105. Thane (W), 400604. PAN: AAACO4853A Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Ashish Pophare (DR) Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Shah (AR) Date of Hearing : 22.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This app…

Lakshmi Narayan Coal and Mines Limited, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Guwahati

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 174/GTY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…former issue of validity of the re-opening / re-assessment. There is hardly any dispute about the settled legal proposition Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar ITA No.174/Gau/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Laxmi Narayan Coal & Mines Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-1(3)Gau Page 3 (2004) 268 ITR 339 (Bom) that re-opening reasons have to be read on standard basis and no improvement can be made later. We go by the very analogy herein as well and notice that the Assessing Officer’s above extracted re-opening reasons recorded nowhere indicate as to in what manner the taxpayer’s income liable to be assessed had escaped assessment. This tribunal’s…

Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

ITA 79/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2007-08 ITO, Ward-20(3) RMP Holding (P) Ltd. New Delhi. 138C, Block B, Group -4, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi – 110 095 Vs. PAN AAACR5533N (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year 2010-11 RMP Holding (P) Ltd. ITO, Ward 20(3) 138C, Block B, Group-4, Vs. New Delhi. Dilshad Garden, New Delhi -110 095 PAN AAACR5533N (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year 2006-07 M/s. R.N. Khemka Enterprises ITO, (P) Ltd, G-137, Gali No.6, Ward-15(1) Shiv Mandir Road, New Delhi. Vs. Swaroop Naga…