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

SA 44/MUM/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Hindustan Unilever Limited, which is the legal successor of GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited, seeking an extension of stay on the recovery of an outstanding demand related to the Assessment Year 2020-21. The Tribunal had previously granted and extended the stay, with the last extension being on 12.09.2025. The appeal had been adjourned multiple times at the request of the Department, leading to the current application for an extension of stay. The Tribunal found no change in the circumstances that warranted the initial stay and its extensions, thus granting the requested extension.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 846653 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2026
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V S MAHAJAN
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM SA No. 44/Mum/2026 (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. AACCS 0144 E (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri Niraj Jain & Shri Dhruv Seth Respondent by : Shri V S Mahajan Date of Hearing : 27.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2026 O R D E R Captioned 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 has subsequently been extended from time to time. The last order extending stay was passed on 12.09.2025. We have further noticed that though the appeal came up for hearing on earlier occasions, however, at the request of the Department, it was adjourned. Therefore, the cause of non-disposal of the appeal cannot be attributed to the assessee. Since, there is no change in the facts and Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA No. 44/Mum/2026 (A.Y.2020-21) Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Dy. CIT 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 or till the disposal of the corresponding appeal, whichever is earlier. We have been informed that the appeal is now fixed for hearing on 27.04.2026. 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 27.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Makarand V. Mahadeokar) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 27.03.2026 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 "