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 367,154 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

Shilpa Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 13, Mumbai

ITA 2445/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V. SondeFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan

Section 92ASection 92A(2)(j)Section 92CSection 92F

…ned to those reasons recorded to support his assumption of jurisdiction. "- Kanga & Palkhiwa!a's Commentary at Note 55 at Pg. 2208 of Tenth Edition of "The Law and Practice of Income Tax" ii.) decision in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Born HC) iii.) decision in the case of CIT v. Jagadhri Electric Supply & Industrial Co. [1981] 140 ITR 490 (P&H HC) iv.) decision in the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1988] 174 ITR 714 (Cal HC) 5. Whereas on the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) is…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

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

…nor the order dated 20-11-2013 rejecting the assessee's objection state that the ground for reopening is the tangible material disclosed by the internal audit department of the revenue. The Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R.B.Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332/137 Taxman 479 has held that the challenge to reopening of an assessment can only be resisted on the basis of the reasons recorded at the time of issuance of notice and no further reasons either orally at the bar or by filing of an affidavit can be considered to meet the challenge to reopening of an assessment. Therefore, it would not be permissi…

Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd ( Kochi Refineries Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 1(1) RG 1, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2826/MUM/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2000-01 Assessment Year: 2002-03 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Tiresh Dave, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801ASection 80ISection 8O

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2000-01 Assessment Year: 2002-03 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. Bharat Petroleum The Asstt. Comm. of Corp. Ltd., (Kochi Income Tax, Refineries Limited), Circle 2(1), Bharat Bhavan Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Mumbai Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAACB2902M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Tiresh Dave, A.R. Shri N.A. Patade, A.R. R…

A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Hoogly, Hooghly vs. Swapan Kumar Mondal, Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1952/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Hooghly……...……...………………...……..Appellant Swapan Kumar Mondal..…….…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….…..Respondent Uttarayan Station Road Chinsurah R.S. Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 102 [Pan : Aedpm 6336 A]

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…therefore, lie in whether or not the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment can be held to be sustainable in law. 11. It is also well settled in law, as has been held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R B Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332/137 Taxman 479 as well, 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 th…

M/S. Cygnus Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2288/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

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

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

…the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons so recorded, nor any thing can be deleted from the reasons so 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 his min…

M/S. Halcrow Group Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5554/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5163/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sumit Lal Chandani &For Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148Section 154Section 234ASection 44DSection 9

…Ramanlal Patel Vs ITO (2011) 56 DTR 212 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. in SLP CC No. 1589/2013 (SC) " CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Del.) " CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) " Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) " Mohan Gupta (HUF) Vs CIT (2014) 366 ITR 115 (Del.) " Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs DCIT (2013) 351 ITR 023 (Del.) " Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2011) 343 ITR 141 (Del.) " NYK Line (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 346 ITR 361 (Bom.) " CIT Vs Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) " Madhukar Khosla Vs ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 165 (Del.)…

ACIT 32(3), Mumbai vs. R.G.Manudhane (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2610/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Arati Vissanji, AR

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

…sst. CIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. (2012)348 / ITR 299(SC), ICICI Bank Ltd. V. K.J Rao(2004) 268 ITR 203 (Bom), CIT v. Viniyas Finance and Investment P. Ltd. (2013)357 8 ITR 646 (Del) and Hindustan Lever Ltd. V.R.B. Walkar, Asst. CIT (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom)." Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal against the quashing of the re- assessment. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the assessee vide letter dated 25.07.2008, 07.05.2008 and 14.08.2008 filed complete working of long term capital gain vide Para 3 of the letter, during…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 6698/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…n Winsome Textiles Industries Vs. UOI: 278 ITR 470 (P&H). (g) Avtec v. DCIT: 395 ITR 434 (Del.). 12 Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. ACIT: 216 ITR 371 (Guj.) (i) Fenner India Ltd. v. DCIT: 241 ITR 672 (Mad.). (j) Hindustan Lever Ltd. : 268 ITR 332 (Bom.). (k) Babu Lal Jug Raj & Co. vs. ITO: 289 ITR 115 (Raj.). (l) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT: 308 ITR 38 (Del.). (m) CIT v. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd.: 171 Taxman 379 (Del.). (n) Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd. v. ITO: 308 ITR 22 (Del.). (o) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. : 343 ITR 141 (Del.). (p) Unitech Ltd. v. DCIT :…

Sunil Agarwal, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(3), Haridwar

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 988/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar Laxmi Niwas, Near Post Office, Kankhal, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Pan: Aanpa0687L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush KrFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 69B

…A No. 335/2015. 16. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd. vs. ACIT reported 400 ITR 397. 17. Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 268 ITR 332 and 18. Copy of order of Tribunal in the case of Bhikam Singh. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1081/Del/2017. 5. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s. 148 after due application of mind. Hhe further stated that the AO has followed due procedure before issuing the no…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Vimal Chand Surana HUF, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 May 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292C

…It 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…

Ramavtar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 437/JPR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: The Learned Assessing Officer. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred On Fact & In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 24,05,760/- :

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…eopening of the assessment based on the statement recorded under section 133A is not permitted without any corroborative evidence. The ld. A/R has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R.B. Wadkar, 268 ITR 332 (Bom.) and submitted that it is for the AO to disclose and open his mind through reasons recorded by him. It is for the AO to form his opinion and reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The provisions of section 147 cannot be resorted to conduct an enquiry and to ascertain whether an income a…

Ashok Baldevbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.2 of the

ITA 787/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhashok Baldevbhai Patel Acit- 16(2), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 133, Enterprises Apartments, Forjett Hill Road, Tardeo, Vs. Building, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai-400007. Pan: Agipp8800B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah (Ar) Respondent By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 68

…relied upon the decisions of Bombay High Court in case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Vs ACIT & Ors [346 ITR 443], Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT & Ors [382 ITR 93], Titanor Components Ltd Vs ACIT & Ors [343 ITR 183],Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs ACIT & Ors [268 ITR 332] and Morarjee Goculdas Spinning And Weaving Co Ltd Vs P.N. Bansal & Another [208 ITR 471], Mumbai Tribunal in Vaman International Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT [ITA No. 1040 & 1041/Mum/2017] dated 27.09.2017, Rajasthan High Court in case of Dhadda Exports Vs ITO [377 ITR 347], Allahabad High Court in case of Dr. Shashi Kant Garg v. CIT & Ors [285 ITR 158]…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. S M Auto Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 656/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…perusal of reasons clearly indicates that there is a lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. The ld. AR to support his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar, 268 ITR 332 (Bombay); ii. Nirmal Bang Securities (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 67 taxmann.com 57 (Bombay); iii. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Delhi). 4.1 The ld. AR submitted that a perusal of proforma for obtaining the approval of Commissioner of Income Tax at pages 68 and 69 of th…

Shivalik Kinema Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 400/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…orded. Therefore, the cases relied by CIT(A) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. In support of his contentions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) where it was held 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 based on reasons not recorded. It is for the AO to disclose and open his mind through reaso…

Amolika Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -9(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 505/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 505 & 506/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08&2008-09)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Sh. M. C. Omi

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SH. R. C. SHARMA, AM & SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 505 & 506/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08&2008-09) ITO 9(1)(2) Amolika Constructions Room No. 260A, 2nd floor, Pvt. Ltd. 1108, 11th floor, Samarth बिधम/ AayakarBhavan, M. k. Road, Mmbai-400020. Vaibhav, New Link Road, Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAGCA4658K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Dr. P. Daniel, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. M. C. Omi Ningshen, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09.04.18…

Kishore Kumar Kataruka, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2787/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amar Gahlot & ChandniFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. Nos.2787, 2788/M/2017 & 7603/M/2011 (Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09) Kishore Kumar Kataruka Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 71, Land Mark, 175, Karter 19(3)(4), Piramal Road, Bandra (East), Chambers Mumbai Mumbai-400050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : APXPK3340B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Amar Gahlot & Chandni Patel (AR) Department by: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR) Date of Hearing: 21.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 19.03 2018 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The as…

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 495/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…cts on record. Accordingly he submitted that the first proviso to sec. 147 would disable the AO to reopen the assessment. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. ACIT (268 ITR 332). 9. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the assessing officer has reopened the assessments of the impugned assessment years only for the reason that he has taken a different view with regard to the taxability of the management services fees received by the assessee in AY 2009-10. We have noticed that the assessing officer has…

Vista Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 5768/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ficer has re–opened the assessment which is legally impermissible. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Kelvinator of India, 320 ITR 561; ii) Hindustan Liver Ltd v/s R.B. Wadkar, 268 ITR 332; iii) Sabh Infrastructures Ltd. v/s ACIT, 398 ITR 198; iv) Indulata Rangwala v/s DCIT, 384 ITR 337; and v) NDT Systems v/s ITO, 363 ITR 603. 7 M/s. Vista Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. [Now M/s. PVR Ltd.] 8. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, even otherwise also the issue on which the assessment was re–opened under section 147 of the Act havi…

Maharashtra Stae Road Development Corporation Td, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…micals Co. Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 275 (SC) vi. CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. [2003] 1 RC 208 (SC) vii. Grindwell Norton Ltd. v. Jagdish Prasad Jangid, Asst. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 673 (Bom) viii. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT (No. 2) [2004] 268 ITR 339 (Bom) ix. United Electrical Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 317 (Delhi) 2.6. In another case, of Godrej Agrovet Ltd. vs DCIT (2010) 323 ITR 97 (Bom.), the Hon'ble High Court wherein, For the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 27…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148