The Bombay High Court has directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to re-consider the addition made on account of bogus purchases in the case of PCIT vs. Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia. The court found that the ITAT had dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and allowed the assessee’s appeal based on incomplete investigation and failure to consider relevant documents and evidence.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court have upheld the Judgment of ITAT wherein it was observed that the tax residency certificate is sufficient to determine the proof of residency and the income-tax authorities cannot ignore the valid tax residency certificate issued by the Government authority of the other contracting state, that is, Singapore.
Bombay High Court held re-opening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for mere change of opinion is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.
Analyze the case of PCIT Vs Indravadan Jain, HUF in the Bombay High Court, where the issue of addition u/s 68 for penny stock transactions was examined. Discover how documentary evidence played a crucial role in the court’s decision.
The Bombay High Court rules that CGST and SGST paid on export transactions cannot be retained by State Authorities. Get the details and analysis of this critical ruling here.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment, in the exercise of powers under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act, without tangible material to conclude that income had escaped assessment is untenable in law.
A detailed analysis of the Bombay High Court’s judgment in the case of PCIT Vs Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. regarding the legitimacy of claiming depreciation on revalued assets.
Bombay High Court held that issuance of notice and all consequential proceedings in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void. Accordingly, order passed thereon is liable to be quashed and set aside.
A last-minute application to stay LOCs for international travel met with strong disapproval and a fine from the Bombay High Court, reinforcing the importance of timely applications to court.
Bombay High Court held that as per clause (xiii) of section 144B(1), reply can be filed by the assessee on the date and time as specified or within the extended time. Accordingly, shutting down the window before completion of extended time limit is unjustified. Hence, assessment order liable to be quashed.
