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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Ramanathan Viswanathan, Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1556/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…re to be examined on a 'stand-alone' basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded nor anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxman 479/268 ITR 332 inter alia, held "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 addition can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn on the basis of reasons not recorded by him. He has to speak through the reasons." Their Lordships add…

R.Viswanathan, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1324/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…are to be examined on a 'stand-alone' basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded nor anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxman 479/268 ITR 332 inter alia, held "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 addition can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn on the basis of reasons not recorded by him. He has to speak through the reasons." Their Lordships added…

R.Viswanathan, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1323/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1321 To 1324/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 R. Viswanathan, Flat No.A-4, Rams Anjali Atrium No.8, Sundaram Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. [Pan: Adlpv 6760 G] V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1556 & 1597/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. V. R. Viswanathan, Flat No.A-4, Rams Anjali Atrium No.8, Sundaram Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. [Pan: Adlpv 6760 G] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) : (यथ/Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri. V. Naga Prasad, Advocate/Ar थ की ओर से /Department By : Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit/Dr सुनवाईकतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 / 17.11.2025 घोषणाकतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…are to be examined on a 'stand-alone' basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded nor anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxman 479/268 ITR 332 inter alia, held "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 addition can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn on the basis of reasons not recorded by him. He has to speak through the reasons." Their Lordships added…

R.Viswanathan, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1322/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…are to be examined on a 'stand-alone' basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded nor anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxman 479/268 ITR 332 inter alia, held "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 addition can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn on the basis of reasons not recorded by him. He has to speak through the reasons." Their Lordships added…

R.Viswanathan, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 1321/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1321 To 1324/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 R. Viswanathan, Flat No.A-4, Rams Anjali Atrium No.8, Sundaram Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. [Pan: Adlpv 6760 G] V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1556 & 1597/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. V. R. Viswanathan, Flat No.A-4, Rams Anjali Atrium No.8, Sundaram Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. [Pan: Adlpv 6760 G] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) : (यथ/Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri. V. Naga Prasad, Advocate/Ar थ की ओर से /Department By : Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit/Dr सुनवाईकतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 / 17.11.2025 घोषणाकतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…are to be examined on a 'stand-alone' basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded nor anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxman 479/268 ITR 332 inter alia, held "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 addition can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn on the basis of reasons not recorded by him. He has to speak through the reasons." Their Lordships added…

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Infratech Builders and Agro Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2362/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs Infratech Builders & Agro Pvt. Tax Central Circle 7(2), Ltd. Mumbai 216 Shah & Nahar Industrial E, Room No.655, 6Th Floor Dr. E Moses Road Worli Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai 400018, Maharashtra Mumbai, Mumbai India, Mumbai Pan: Aabci7392B Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appeared) Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawalthis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Cit(A),- 49, Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1072911991(1) Mumbai Vide Order Dated 04.02.2025 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 13.12.2016 For A.Y. 2009-10. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are As Under: 1."On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Reopening Of The Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Infratech Builders & Agro Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law Without Considering The Fact That The Assess Had Failed To Provide 1 The Details Of Payments Made To M/S. Bovis India Pvt. Ltd. & M/S. Bovis Lend Lease India Pvt. Ltd. & No Service Tax Was Charged On The Payments Made To These Companies, Unlike Other Similar Payments.”

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner of Income vs Infratech Builders & Agro Pvt. Tax Central Circle 7(2), Ltd. Mumbai 216 Shah & Nahar Industrial E, Room No.655, 6th Floor Dr. E Moses Road Worli Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai 400018, Maharashtra Mumbai, Mumbai India, Mumbai PAN: AABCI7392B Appellant Respondent Present for: Appellant by : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR (Virtually appeared) Date of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Da…

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1126/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…one available before A.O. in original assessment and ergo the reopening is not validly done and in view of supreme Court decision in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd 320 ITR 561 and jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bombay), the reopening deserves to be quashed. 10. Appellant craves to leave, add / alter or amend any other grounds of appeal.” 4. Assessee has also raised following additional grounds of appeal : “11. Without prejudice to other Grounds of appeal, Appellant contends that income from alleged "Anonymous Donations", taxable u/s 115BBC, can't exc…

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 1125/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…one available before A.O. in original assessment and ergo the reopening is not validly done and in view of supreme Court decision in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd 320 ITR 561 and jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bombay), the reopening deserves to be quashed. 10. Appellant craves to leave, add / alter or amend any other grounds of appeal.” Assessee has also raised following additional grounds of appeal: “11. Without prejudice to other Grounds of appeal, Appellant contends that income from alleged "Anonymous Donations", taxable u/s 115BBC, can't exceed "T…

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1124/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…one available before A.O. in original assessment and ergo the reopening is not validly done and in view of supreme Court decision in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd 320 ITR 561 and jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bombay), the reopening deserves to be quashed. 10. Appellant craves to leave, add / alter or amend any other grounds of appeal.” 4. Assessee has also raised following additional grounds of appeal : “11. Without prejudice to other Grounds of appeal, Appellant contends that income from alleged "Anonymous Donations", taxable u/s 115BBC, can't exc…

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 1123/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…one available before A.O. in original assessment and ergo the reopening is not validly done and in view of supreme Court decision in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd 320 ITR 561 and jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bombay), the reopening deserves to be quashed. 10. Appellant craves to leave, add / alter or amend any other grounds of appeal.” Assessee has also raised following additional grounds of appeal: “11. Without prejudice to other Grounds of appeal, Appellant contends that income from alleged "Anonymous Donations", taxable u/s 115BBC, can't exceed "T…

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 1122/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…one available before A.O. in original assessment and ergo the reopening is not validly done and in view of supreme Court decision in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd 320 ITR 561 and jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bombay), the reopening deserves to be quashed. 10. Appellant craves to leave, add / alter or amend any other grounds of appeal.” Assessee has also raised following additional grounds of appeal: 4 ITA Nos.1121 to 1126/PUN/2024 Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha “11. Without prejudice to other Grounds of appeal, Appellant contends that income from al…

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1121/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

…one available before A.O. in original assessment and ergo the reopening is not validly done and in view of supreme Court decision in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd 320 ITR 561 and jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bombay), the reopening deserves to be quashed. 10. Appellant craves to leave, add / alter or amend any other grounds of appeal.” 4. Assessee has also raised following additional grounds of appeal : “11. Without prejudice to other Grounds of appeal, Appellant contends that income from alleged "Anonymous Donations", taxable u/s 115BBC, can't exc…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Kathiresan, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 899/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153C

…opening the reassessment are to be examined on a ‘stand-alone’ basis. Neither anything 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. (2004) 268 ITR 332 have, inter alia, held “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 addition can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn on the basis of reasons not recorded by him. He has to speak through the reasons.” Their Lordsh…

Abdul Hamid Abdul Majid Nathani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 22(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2528/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalabdul Hamid Abdul Majid Nathani Flat No.3102, 31St Floor Kalapataru Heights, Dr. A.L. Nair Road Agripada, Mumbai - 400011 ............... Appellant Pan: Aabpn1625K V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, – 22(1), Mumbai ……………… Respondent Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 3Section 68

…xamined on a standalone basis to determine the validity of proceedings under section 147 of the Act. In this regard, it is relevant to note the following observation of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd vs R.B.Wadkar, reported in [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom.): - “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 Officer. No su…

DCIT CC 2 2, Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1254/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

…ble Bombay High can be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxman 479/268 ITR 332 8 ITR 332 inter alia, held "it is needless to mention it is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additi…

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1238/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

…ble Bombay High can be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxman 479/268 ITR 332 8 ITR 332 inter alia, held "it is needless to mention it is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additi…

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1237/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1254, 1255, 1258, 1260/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1233, 1235, 1237, 1238 /Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 M/S. Southern Agrifurane- V. The Dcit, Industries Pvt Ltd Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 250Section 80G

…to be examined on a 'stand-alone' basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded nor anything can be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxman 479/268 ITR 332 inter alia, held "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 addition can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn on the basis of :: 59 :: ITA Nos.1254, 1255, 1258, 1260/Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1233, 1235, 1237, 1238/Chny/…

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1235/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1254, 1255, 1258, 1260/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1233, 1235, 1237, 1238 /Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 M/S. Southern Agrifurane- Industries Pvt Ltd Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 250Section 80G

…to be examined on a 'stand-alone' basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded nor anything can be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxman 479/268 ITR 332 inter alia, held "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 addition can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn on the basis of reasons not recorded by him. He has to speak through the reasons." Their Lordships added…

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2845/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
For Respondent: Shri Farooq Irani
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2617/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ITA No.2618/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 ITA No.2620/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 ITA No.2622/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 C.O.96/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 87, New India Assurance Building, M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001, Maharashtra. [PAN:AAACN4165C]....... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Roa…

DCIT 3.2.1, Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2841/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2617/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ITA No.2616/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 ITA No.2618/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 ITA No.2619/Mum/2024 Assessment Year:2015-2016 ITA No.2620/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 ITA No.2621/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 ITA No.2622/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 ITA No.2623/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 & C.O.96/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 C.O.97/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013…