Bombay High Court held that there is no transfer of property in goods when furniture manufactured is transferred from one unit to other. Hence, there would be no violation of condition (i) or (vii) of the Notification No. 30/97-CUS dated 1 April 1997 as there is no transfer in violation of the actual user condition.
Durgashakti Foods Private Limited Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) The main allegation was that monthly returns required to be submitted under the GST Act were not submitted within time for the period mentioned in the report. The investigating officer in the investigation freezed the Bank account of the company. The petitioner, therefore, made […]
Bal Mukund Vaishnav Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) The allegation in the present case is not merely that the applicant has evaded payment of tax or falsified financial records or produce fake accounts or furnished any false information with an intention to evade payment of tax. The allegation is that the applicant has produced […]
Bombay High Court held that an application u/s. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for issuance of summons to income tax authorities to produce documents in respect of Income Tax Return, balance sheet etc. of the complainant is allowable as accused suspects that copies provided by complainant are not genuine.
National Centre for the Performing Arts Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has, prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, paid an amount of Rs.1,49,35,618/- electronically out of which a sum of Rs.1,09,06,948/- was deposited under the Accounting Code 00441480 as tax receipts and […]
The failure on the part of the Respondents to update their official portal, cannot be permitted to result in any sort of prejudice to the Petitioner, Notwithstanding the fact that an order of assessment has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
It is pointed out to us that action of blocking under Rule 86A(3) is for period of one year. As regards one of the suppliers, account was blocked on 21 October 2021 and other suppliers it was on 14 March 2022.
Specification of Charge of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is an important factor while deciding the matters in litigation- Ganga Iron and Steel Trading Co. v Commissioner of Income Tax dated 22.12.2021 , 447 ITR 743 (Bom.)
Bombay High Court held that proceedings that are not concluded within a reasonable period cannot be carried forwards after an inordinate delay.
Bombay High Court held that CBDT Guidelines dated 14th June 2019 prescribing time limit for application for compounding of offence is contrary to provisions of section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act.
