Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 in absence of any new information received by AO between the date of assessment order u/s 143(3) till the issuance of notice u/s 148 is unjustified and untenable in law.
Bombay High Court held that denial of cenvat credit to the telecom communication companies on towers used to rendering telecommunication service is sustained. However, duty demand of ineligible cenvat credit issued beyond the period of limitation as the issue was a debatable issue.
Bombay High Court held that order of Tribunal directed the designated authority to calculate the tax amount applying the ratio of Mohommad Haji Adam & Co case. Designated authority had only to calculate the disputed tax by giving effect to the orders of the Tribunal. Order of Tribunal was not directing fresh examination on any issue.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment in absence of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts and also in absence of any tangible material is unjustifiable.
Revenue Department could only re-open an assessment beyond four years, if there was a failure on the part of assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly and not on the basis of reason to believe without satisfying jurisdictional condition required under provisions of Section 147
Bombay High Court held that Circular No.5-2012 dated 1 August 2012 will not be applicable to the instant case pertaining to AY 2008-09. Law to be applied is the one that is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. Accordingly addition unsustainable.
HC held that it is not the object of GST law to curtail right of the assessee to carry out business. Further restored GST registration of assessee which was cancelled due to non-filing of GST returns.
Bombay High Court held that AO failed to satisfy the direction given by the court while issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order for reopening of assessment and demanding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are quashed and set aside.
Bombay High Court held that granting of license to developer (who entered into assessees land for the purpose of development) doesnt amount to ‘allowing the possession of the land within the meaning of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Revenue Department had neither sought any new information nor made a reference to new material on record. Held that, a change in opinion that does not satisfy the jurisdictional foundation under Section 147 of the IT Act.
