The Petitioner has paid the differential duty under the protest. Thus, vide the present petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned Press Release dated 15.07.2020 and the impugned show cause notice cum demand notice dated 17.04.2023.
By an Order dated 20th October, 2023, Respondent No. 1 rejected the Petitioner’s Application for condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the Return of Income. It is this Order dated 20th October,2023 which has been impugned in the present Petition.
Bombay HC dismisses appeal in CIT-13 Vs Shyam R. Pawar case, upholding Tribunal’s decision on share transaction dispute.
Assessee contended that the complaint filed by Respondent No.3 had not stated about the boundaries of Plot No 14 and there was no clarity as to from which side the encroachment was alleged to be carried out.
Bombay HC permits Pepperfry to file a belated reply to GST SCN, imposing Rs. 50k cost, and restores the matter before the concerned authority.
The application filed on 11th October, 2012 was not pressed and subsequently on 3rd July, 2013 another application was filed by the Respondents claiming compensation amount of USD 745580, maximum penalty of 50% and maximum interest of 12%.
Bombay High Court sets aside Section 148 notice in Anil Kumar Mehta vs ITO, citing procedural issues. Case remanded for fresh consideration by assessing officer.
Bombay High Court directed the State of Maharashtra [including BMC, CIDCO, MIDC, MHADA, BEST and Municipal Corporation of Nagpur] to ensure that there is no abuse or misuse of public funds for issuing advertisements for extraneous purpose.
Further, in reference application filed under the Settlement Act, the Dy CST passed an order of settlement u/s 13(1) and arrived at the same figure of the settlement amount which were calculated by the assessee in its application.
Bombay HC directs Maharashtra Govt. to enforce stamp duty exemption on affidavits and create awareness as per 2004 notification.
