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 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

Asst Cirt 32(3), Mumbai vs. Rajrani S. Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3874/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am The Assistant Commissioner Rajrani S Gupta Of Income Tax-32(3), 11-C, Lancelot Chsl, Sv Room No. 108, 1St Floor, Bldg. Road, Borivali(W), No. C-11, Pratyakshakar Mumbai-400 092 Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadpg1333P

For Appellant: S. L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G. MANJUNATHA, AM The Assistant Commissioner Rajrani S Gupta of Income Tax-32(3), 11-C, Lancelot Chsl, SV Room No. 108, 1st Floor, Bldg. Road, Borivali(W), No. C-11, Pratyakshakar Mumbai-400 092 Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AADPG1333P Revenue by : M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR Assessee by : S. L. Jain, AR Date of hearing: 09-01-2018 Date of pronouncement : 24-01-2018 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of Commiss…

M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Karaikudi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 519/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 09.11.2017
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…all the particulars required to complete the assessment. Therefore, we find that the notice issued under section 148 is not valid. ITA No. /Mds/2017 12 21. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. ACIT (268 ITR 332) has observed that “reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere stating that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and, reopening of assessment made under section 143(3), after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment was not valid. 22. In…

M/S. Bengal Emta Coal Mines Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - Xvi, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 361/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri Satish Khosla, Advocate & Shri Manish Khosla AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri David Z.Chowngth, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 148Section 28Section 35E

…fil the requirement of law when there is full disclosure of all the facts,. The requirement of the proviso to section 147 of the Act are not fulfilled in this case. 11. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited vs ACIT and Ors 268 ITR 332(Bom) held as follows : “The reasons recorded must be based on evidence. The AO, in the event of challenge to the reasons, must be able to justify the same based on material available on record. He must disclose in the reasons as to what fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly necessary for the assessment of that assessm…

ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata vs. Sundarlal Mohanlal Sarda & Others, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 116/KOL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

Section 147Section 148

…rlal Mohanlal Sarda & Others Page 12 The assessing officer cannot improve the reasons already recorded, subsequently by referring to the books of account or the explanations. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332/137 Taxman 479 (Bom.) held that reopening notice is 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. Thus, reasons recorded cannot be supplemented by further reasons or filing an affidavit or making oral submissions. The reasons are made on…

Alpesh K. Ajmera, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3976/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Shri Alpesh K. Ajmera Vs. Ito Ward – 6(1)(2) 29, Aryan Mahal Mumbai C Road, Churchgate Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aabpa7897C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…section 147 had no application to the facts of the instant case. Thus, the impugned notice was set aside.” Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of Grindwell Norton Ltd. vs. CIT 267 ITR 673 and Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. CIT 268 ITR 339. 7. Applying the proposition of law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court, I do not find any merit for reopening of assessment after 5 Shri Alpesh K Ajmera completion of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year when there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully the truly all necessary facts for completion…

Crystal Natural Food Processors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 5(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1513/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am M/S. Crystal Natural Food Vs. Ito Wd 5(1)(3) Processor Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan My Home Apartments, M.K. Road Forjet Cross Road Mumbai – 400 020 Gowali Tank Mumbai – 400 036 Pan/Gir No. Aadcc5431H Appellant) Respondent) ..

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

…on the following judicial pronouncements:-  Bhor Industries Ltd. v/s. AC1T 267 ITR 161 (Bom)  Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v/s. ACIT 267 ITR 200 (Bom)  Grindwell Norton v/s. Jagdish Prasad Jabgid, ACIT 267 ITR 673 (Bom)  Hindutan Lever Ltd. v/s. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT 268 ITR 332 (Bom)  Bhagwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v/s. Dy. CIT 269 ITR 186 (Bom) 5 M/s. Crystal Natural Food Processors Pvt. Ltd., 9. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, learned AR vehemently argued that the opening in the case of the assessee is not justified merely, because it was for purpose of making inquiries. 10. Our attention was a…

Shri Sunil Kumar Saraswat, Mathura vs. ITO 1(3)(4), Mathura

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 109/AGR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 131(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…(supra), no return was filed. Thus, “Sijwali” (supra), is squarely applicable. It makes no difference that the assessee is carrying on business. The reasons are to be seen as they are. In “Sijwali” (supra), referring to “Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R B Wadker”, 268 ITR 332 (Bombay), it has been held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are to be examined on a stand alone basis and nothing can be added to the reasons. It was also observed that the reasons must point out to an income escaping assessment and not merely need of an enquiry which may result in detection of an income escaping assessment.…

D.C.I.T., Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Vatican Commercial Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2623/KOL/2013[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…ng the validity of reopening. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited –vs.- ACIT & Others I.T.A. No. 2623/KOL./2013 Assessment Year: 2004-2005 Page 7 of 12 reported in 268 ITR 332. He once again invited our attention to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and pointed out that the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer to bring to tax the income of Rs.52,93,587/- being 15% of the profit of joint venture business as the same, according to the Assessing Officer, had escaped assessment. In this regard, he i…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tayana Consult Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1566/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 147

…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 mi…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 572/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 568 to 572/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Mr. K. Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner of Old No.12A, New No.24, v. Income-tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non-Corporate Ward-2, West CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. (""यथ"/Respondent) PAN AOBPS4696F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by :…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 571/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 568 to 572/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Mr. K. Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner of Old No.12A, New No.24, v. Income-tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non-Corporate Ward-2, West CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. (""यथ"/Respondent) PAN AOBPS4696F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by :…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 570/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 568 to 572/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Mr. K. Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner of Old No.12A, New No.24, v. Income-tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non-Corporate Ward-2, West CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. (""यथ"/Respondent) PAN AOBPS4696F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by :…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 569/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 568 to 572/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Mr. K. Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner of Old No.12A, New No.24, v. Income-tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non-Corporate Ward-2, West CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. (""यथ"/Respondent) PAN AOBPS4696F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by :…

K.Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 568/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 568 to 572/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Mr. K. Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner of Old No.12A, New No.24, v. Income-tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non-Corporate Ward-2, West CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 035. (""यथ"/Respondent) PAN AOBPS4696F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by :…

M/S Grand Slam Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1791/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

Section 131Section 13aSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…: (1999) 237 ITR 614 (MP); H.A. Nanji & Co. vs. ITO (1979) 120 ITR 593 (Cal); N.D. Bhatt, IAC & Anr. vs. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation (1993) 115 CTR (Bom) 103 : (1995) 216 ITR 811 (Bom); Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (2004) 190 CTR (Bom) 166 : (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom); Asstt. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 30 : (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC); SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 ( Delhi); GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (2002) 257 ITR 702 (Delhi) Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, Writ Petn. No. 6087 of 2010, decided on 18th Oct., 2010 [reported at (201…

M/S Classic Flour and Food Processing Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, ITA No. 765 & 766/Kol/2014 are allowed while ITA

ITA 764/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ITA Nos.764 to 766/Kol/2014 M/s. Classic Flour & Food Processing P.Ltd.A.Y.2007-08 to 2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘C’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] ITA Nos..764 to 766/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. Classic Flour & Food Processing -versus- C.I.T., Kol-IV, Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AABCC 1735 G) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR). Date of Hearing : 29.03.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 05.04.2017. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM:…

DCIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2961/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharincome Tax Appeal No.2961/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tata Finance Ltd Large Tax Payer Unit (Now Merged With Tata Motors Centre -1, 29Th Floor Ltd.) World Trade Centre Bombay House 24 Cuffe Parade Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan : Aaact1629F (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Income Tax Appeal No.2962/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit Bombay House, 24 Centre -1, 29Th Floor Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade Pan : Aaact2T27Q Mumbai – 400 005 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva Sarkar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years

For Appellant: Smt S Padmaja & Smt Mahva SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Shri Manish Haria
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80G

…l material facts necessary for completion of assessment. i) M/s Tata Communication Ltd. V Addl. CIT (1TA No. 3417/M /2009 & CO No.201/M/2012) ii) DCIT v Aristocrat Luggage Ltd. (ITA No.5422/M/2013) (ITAT Mumbai) iii) Hindustan Lever Limited v R. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332) (Bom.) iv) Hindustan Lever Limited v R. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 339) (Bom.) v) Kimplas Trenton Fittings V. ACIT (340 ITR 299) (Bom.) vi) Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (301 ITR 407) (Bom.) vii) IPCA Laboratories Ltd v DCIT (251 ITR 416) (Bom.) viii) Bhor Industries Limited v ACIT (267 ITR 161)(Bom) ix) ICICI Bank Limited v DCIT (268 ITR 203)(Bom.) x) CIT…

Just Textiles Ltd, Ambernath vs. DCIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1907/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Just Textiles Ltd., K-5, Vs. Dcit Rg 10 (3), Mumbai - Additional Midc Anand 400020 Nagar (E), Ambernath – 421506 Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1221D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 48Section 50

…Just Textiles Ltd., Prashan S.Joshi 324 ITR 154, wherein it was held that only reasons recorded by Assessing Officer must be considered. 11. Learned AR also relies upon the following decisions for the above proposition:-  Hindustan Lever Ltd., v R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bom)  Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election AIR 1978 SC 851  Mrs. Usha A Kalwani v S.N.Soni 272 ITR 67 (Bom)  Godrej Industries Ltd., v B.S.Singh, Dy. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 1 (Bom) 12. In view of the above judicial pronouncements learned AR vehemently argued that the Assessment Order passed by the AO was not sustainable in law. 13. With regard t…

Knight Frank (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 1165/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017AY 2002-03
For Appellant: S/Shri M.M.Golavala & Amey WagleFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ "यायपीठ मुंबई मुंबई म"। म"। आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण "यायपीठ "यायपीठ मुंबई मुंबई म"। म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संजय गग" ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA No.1165/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष"ष"ष"ष" /Assessment Year: 2002-03 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण M/s. Knight Frank (India) Pvt.Ltd. Dy. CIT-Range-2(2) Room No.577, 5th Floor C/o. Kalyaniwala & Mistry Army & Navy Building, 3rd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Vs. 148, M.G.…

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Ltd ( Earlier Known As Tata Engg & Locomotive Co.Ltd), Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised in Cross objections is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 3600/MUM/2011[20001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 37(1)

…AT Claim during the course of original assessment proceeding. The Ld. AR of the assessee in support of his submission relied upon the decision of Tata Communication Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA No. 3417/M/09 and C.O. No. 201/M/2012 Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332 and Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 339 (Bom)]. And the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Calvinator of India Ltd. 322 ITR 561 (SC). The ld AR for assessee also filed the list on the following decision for his relience. i. Hindustan Lever Limited v r. B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332) (Bom). ii. Hindustan Lever Limited v r. B. Wa…