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 366,470 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

DCIT, Karaikudi vs. M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Karaikudi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2947/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…isclose fully and truly all the particulars required to complete the assessment. Therefore, we find that the notice issued under section 148 is not valid. 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…

DCIT, Karaikudi vs. M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Karaikudi

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2946/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…isclose fully and truly all the particulars required to complete the assessment. Therefore, we find that the notice issued under section 148 is not valid. 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.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2773/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…isclose fully and truly all the particulars required to complete the assessment. Therefore, we find that the notice issued under section 148 is not valid. 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.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2772/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…isclose fully and truly all the particulars required to complete the assessment. Therefore, we find that the notice issued under section 148 is not valid. 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…

Shri S L Basavaraj (HUF) vs. The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals stand allowed

ITA/336/2009HC Karnataka07 Aug 2015

Bench: The Tribunal. By A Common Order Dated 30.1.2009, Tribunal Has Allowed The Appeals Of The Revenue. Aggrieved

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260

…the reasons are relevant and have a bearing on the matters in regard to which he is required to entertain the belief before he can issue notice under Section 147(a) of the Act”. The Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd – vs- Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 has held that the Assessing Officer must investigate as to whether the material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly necessary for assessment of that assessment year, so as to establish the vital link between the reasons and evidence. That vital link is the safeguard against arbitrary reopening of the concluded assessment. T…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vs. M/S Post & Bsnl Employees

The appeal is dismissed

RP/205/2015HC Karnataka24 Jul 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 45(2)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA NO.205 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), No.59, HMT Bhavan, 6th Floor, Bellary Road, Ganganagar, Bangalore – 560032 …Appellants (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate) AND: M/s. Chaitanya Properties Pvt.Ltd., No.17, Sankey Road, Bangalore -560020 PAN: AAACC 5900A.…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 222/CHNY/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…s. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submit…

M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporationlimited, Neyveli vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 177/CHNY/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…s. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submit…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 529/CHNY/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…s. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submit…

M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli vs. ITO, Cuddalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 782/CHNY/2005[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…s. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submit…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 374/CHNY/2004[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

For Respondent: Shri. E.S. Nagendra Prasad
Section 31Section 37

…s. Froamer France, 264 ITR 566 (SC) (8) CIT vs. T.N. Transport Develop Fiance Corp. Ltd 306 ITR 136 (Mad). (9) CIT vs. TVS Motor Co. Ltd 319, ITR 192 (Mad) (10) SAK Industries P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 2012-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-IT (11) Hindustan lever ltd vs. R.B. Wadekar, 268 ITR 332 Bom. (12) Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 38 (Del). (13) CIT vs. A.V. Thomas exports ltd, 296 ITR 603 Mad. (14) Well Intertrade P. Ltd vs. CIT, 308 ITR 22 (Del) (15) Sitara Diamond P. Ltd vs. DCIT, 345 ITR 91 (Bom) (16) Titanor Components Ltd vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 183 (Bom). 12. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submit…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Xerox Modicorp Limited

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/1274/2007HC Delhi14 Sept 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 32A

…ITA No. 1274 of 2007 & Others Page 1 of 22 Reportable * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 1274 of 2007 With ITA No. 1270 of 2007, ITA No. 1273 of 2007, ITA No. 1275 of 2007, ITA No. 1285 of 2007, ITA No. 1286 of 2007, ITA No. 24 of 2008, ITA No. 26 of 2008, ITA No. 67 of 2008 and ITA No.331 of 2008. Reserved On: August 12, 2010 % Pronounced On: September 14, 2010 1) ITA No. 1274 of 2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . Appellant Through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. VERSUS XEROX MODICORP…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Xerox Modicorp Limited

Appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1286 / 2007HC Delhi14 Sept 2010
Section 32A

…e out that there was failure on the part of the assessee to give complete particulars. He referred to the following judgments in his support this plea: - (i) **JSRS Udyog Ltd.** vs. **ITO** [313 ITR 321 (Del.)] - (ii) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [268 ITR 332 (Bom.)] - 21. On the aspect of change of opinion, Mr. Vohra's forceful submission was that complete details of the items manufactured by the ![](_page_17_Picture_1.jpeg) assessee were given. Whether they fall in Schedule XI or not was had debated and discussed. Even certificate under Section 80CC (3) was given. Two views were possible on this a…

Commissioner of Income Tax Central I vs. Xerox Modicorp Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA - 67 / 2008HC Delhi14 Sept 2010
Section 32A

…e out that there was failure on the part of the assessee to give complete particulars. He referred to the following judgments in his support this plea: - (i) **JSRS Udyog Ltd.** vs. **ITO** [313 ITR 321 (Del.)] - (ii) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [268 ITR 332 (Bom.)] - 21. On the aspect of change of opinion, Mr. Vohra's forceful submission was that complete details of the items manufactured by the assessee were given. Whether they fall in Schedule XI or not was hot debated and discussed. Even certificate under Section 80CC (3) was given. Two views were possible on this aspect. According to him, when…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Xerox Modicorp Limited

Appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1274 / 2007HC Delhi14 Sept 2010
Section 32A

…Reportable * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 1274 of 2007 With ITA No. 1270 of 2007, ITA No. 1273 of 2007, ITA No. 1275 of 2007, ITA No. 1285 of 2007, ITA No. 1286 of 2007, ITA No. 24 of 2008, ITA No. 26 of 2008, ITA No. 67 of 2008 and ITA No.331 of 2008. Reserved On: August 12, 2010 % Pronounced On: September 14, 2010 1) ITA No. 1274 of 2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . Appellant Through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate. VERSUS XEROX MODICORP LIMITED . . .Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vo…