Hindusthan Lever Ltd. v. ACIT

268 ITR 322High Court#17460 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing Hindusthan Lever Ltd. v. ACIT

Hem Lata Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata.

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in this respect for AY 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 751/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…usion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.” 7.6. We also take assistance from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hindusthan Lever Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 268 ITR 322 (Bom.) wherein it was held as under: “It is settled law that the reasons recorded have to be read as it is written without there being any addition or subtraction to the same. The reasons are vague and unclear and do not point out any particular wrongdoing of the assessee. In fact it speaks of suspicion and assumptions and therefore the same is…

Hem Lata Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata.

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in this respect for AY 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 750/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…usion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.” 7.6. We also take assistance from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hindusthan Lever Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 268 ITR 322 (Bom.) wherein it was held as under: “It is settled law that the reasons recorded have to be read as it is written without there being any addition or subtraction to the same. The reasons are vague and unclear and do not point out any particular wrongdoing of the assessee. In fact it speaks of suspicion and assumptions and therefore the same is…

Ravi Mohan Gehi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

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

ITA 6238/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cen Cir 40, Ravi Mohan Gehi, Piramal Chambers B/6, Navkar Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Pin- Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aeppg1674M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Pradip Kanasi, Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Michael, Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 29.07.2020 : Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2020 :

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kanasi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Michael, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 57

…7 (Raj.) v. Chuggamal Rajpal 79 ITR 603 (SC) vi. IBM World Trade Corp. 216 ITR 811 (Born.) vii. Bawa Abhay Singh 253 ITR 83 (Del.) viii. United Electrical Co.(P.) Ltd. 258 ITR 317 (Del.) ix. Ganga Saran & Sons. (P.) Ltd. 130 IFR 1 (SC) X. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 268 ITR 322 (Bom.) g. Your appellant very strongly submits that the entire addition made without any basis in the in the manner stated above in violation of 19 I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 Ravi Mohan Gehi natural justice and without any findings of the facts deserves to be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission that the addition made by the Ld…

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal raised by the

ITA 3951/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 308, Level 3, Ceejay House, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, F Block, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent Dcit Cc-6(4), M/S Arshiya International Ltd. Room No. 32(1), Ground 7Th Floor, Twin Arcade, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, C Wing, Military Road, M.K. Road, Marol Maroshi, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaaci2679A Appellant Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. [Formerly Dcit Cc-6(4), Known As Arshiya International Room No. 32(1), Ground Vs. Ltd.] 3021, Ceejay House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Level-3, Shiv Sagar Estate, M.K. Road, F-Block, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai-400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018. M/S Arshiya International Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Mukundraj Chare
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…fore, in our view the reasons of reopening were not valid. Moreover, no sanction of Commissioner of Income-tax was obtained by the AO before issuance of the notice under section 148. 11. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hindustan Liver Ltd. Vs R.B. Vadekar (268 ITR 322 Bom) held that when in the reasons recorded the AO nowhere stated that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment of that assessment year and notice was clearly beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant Assessment Year. In such case, the jurisdictional con…

The Pancharatna Co Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1613/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh Rajendra & Sh Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mehulle V. Choksi&For Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta (DR)
Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 80P(2)(d)

…at earlier return was not return in the eyes of law. This is not the reason stated by the assessing officer and, therefore, it cannot be permitted to be taken at this stage. It is settled question as held by this court in Hindustan Lever Ltd versus RB Wadkar (268 ITR 322), that the reopening notice stands or falls by the reasons recorded at the time of reopening notice is issued. It is not permissible to edit further reasons to those recorded while issuing of the reopening notice. In view of this position, the petition requires to be allowed.” 5. Considering the order of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay(supra) holdin…

Hindusthan Lever Ltd. v. ACIT (268 ITR 322) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax