Hindustan Unilever Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Background and procedural posture
The appeals arise from the assessment year 2004–05. Both the assessee and the Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)’s order dated 24/11/2017. The assessee’s appeal raised numerous grounds (allocation of head-office/common expenses for computation of deductions under sections 10B and 80-IB; section 14A; adjustment of closing stock for unutilised CENVAT under section 145A; reductions under section 80-HHC; treatment of miscellaneous income, internal transfers and premium on termination of trademark agreement; discount on prepayment of loan; capital subsidy treatment; interest under sections 234C/234D; and an additional ground on DDT vis-à-vis DTAA). The Revenue’s appeal challenged several CIT(A) findings including transfer-pricing adjustments and the treatment of royalty and other receipts for section 80-HHC purposes.
Tribunal’s approach
The Tribunal examined each issue on the record and largely followed earlier coordinate-bench decisions in the assessee’s own case for other assessment years where facts and law were unchanged. Where factual or legal issues required fresh fact-finding or verification (for example, evidence about realisation of export proceeds, details of capital-subsidy schemes, or verification of sales-tax prepayment discount documentation), the Tribunal generally remitted those issues to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication with directions to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key issues and findings (by subject)
