Analysis of the Medineutrina Pvt. Ltd vs DIC case in Bombay High Court involving property auction, encumbrances, and the legal obligations of auction purchasers
Bombay High Court’s ruling on anticipatory bail for an applicant accused of availing input tax credit without goods receipt under CGST Act
Bombay High Court addresses the issue of inaction by state officers in responding to representations by an assessee, highlighting the need for accountability.
Gurdeep Singh Sachar Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) In the world of sports, gaming, and taxation, there is a growing debate about the legality of online fantasy sports gaming platforms and their liability for Goods & Service Tax (GST). One such case that has garnered significant attention is the legal battle between Gurdeep […]
Bombay High Court held that no assessment can be reopened merely on the basis of change of opinion. Accordingly, initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable in law.
Bombay High Court held that application of Enforcement Directorate u/s. 4 read with Section 12 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance, 2018 praying that the Applicant (Mehul Choksi) be declared as a fugitive economic offender is acceptable as requirement of Section 4 duly complied.
Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, without indicating basis for having a reason to belief that income has escaped assessment, merely based on change of opinion is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
Bombay High Court held that failure to pass a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act results in rendering the final assessment as one without jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court held that rejection of benefit under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 (DTVSV) unjustified as pendency of prosecution was in respect of any issue and not in respect of tax arrears.
Learn about the Bombay High Court’s ruling on the retrospective application of an amendment to Section 54F in the case of Hemant Dinkar Kandlur vs CIT
