Bombay High Court held that in absence of any receipt of new information or reference to any new material on record, it can be concluded that re-opening of assessment is merely because of change of opinion and the same is unsustainable in law.
Bombay High Court held that State Government is under an obligation to repay the value of stamps in money in case the stamps are not used and given to Collector for cancellation.
Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act is unjustified as the assessee provided complete disclosure of all the primary material facts during the scrutiny assessment.
MA Multi-Infra Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) On a perusal of the notice dated 31st March 2021 issued u/s.148 of the Act by the Assessing Officer shows that the same has been issued after obtaining necessary satisfaction of the Range 3(2), Mumbai. As per the objections filed by the revenue, the approval […]
HC held that where an Order of Cancellation of Registration under GST Act was uploaded on GST Portal without signature, limitation for filing appeal cannot start until signature is affixed on such order.
Bombay High Court held that based on the charge sheet, the custody of the applicants was never sought during the course of investigation by CBI. Accordingly, demanding custody merely because of huge involved of amount is unjustified. Hence, bail granted.
Bombay High Court held that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) suspending registration of registered valuer merely because criminal proceeding is initiated against the valuer is untenable in law.
Bombay High Court held that notice without signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, is invalid and would not vest AO with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess the income of the petitioner.
Bombay High Court held that purchases cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure (i.e. fictitious purchases) merely because suppliers have not appeared before AO or CIT(A).
Assessing Officer, however, denied the benefit on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish a certificate from the concerned Port Authority certifying that the structure was a part of the Port, which it considered mandatory in view of the Board’s notification dated 23rd June 2000 followed by Circular No.10 of 2005 dated 16th December 2005.
