HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED (AS A LEGAL SUCCESSOR OF GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LIMITED),HARYANA V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA

SA 113/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Hindustan Unilever Limited, as the legal successor of GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited, seeking an extension of stay on the recovery of an outstanding demand for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The Tribunal had previously granted and extended the stay, noting that the delay in the disposal of the corresponding appeal was not attributable to the assessee. The Tribunal decided to extend the stay for another 180 days, expecting the parties to proceed with the hearing of the appeal on the scheduled date.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774303 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2025
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SA No.113/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 3741/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Hindustan Unilever Limited (as legal successor of GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited) 24-25 Floor, One Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, DLF phase-5, Gurgaon-122 002 Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Mumbai PAN/GIR No. (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri Neeraj Jain & Ms. Mansha Bhalla Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 O R D E R The captioned stay application has been filed by the assessee/applicant seeking extension of stay on recovery of outstanding demand, pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. 2. We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is observed, while considering the initial stay application filed by the assessee, the Tribunal vide order dated 06.09.2024 had granted stay, which was subsequently extended by a further period of 180 days vide order dated 28.02.2025. It also appears from record, the cause of non-disposal of the corresponding appeal is not attributable to the assessee. There Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA No.113/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Dy. CIT being no material change in the facts and circumstances, based on which stay was earlier granted to the assessee and was extended thereafter, we are inclined to extend the stay for a further period of 180 days from the date of this order. It is also observed, now the appeal is fixed for hearing on 23.10.2025. We expect the parties to make an endeavor to proceed with the hearing of the appeal on the date fixed. 3. In the result, stay application is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 12.09.2025 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "