HC held that Tribunal cannot differ from earlier order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case and follow the order of Tribunal in another assessee.
Harsh Kaushal Corporation Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) In the present case, it is evident from the reasons recorded for reopening that the petitioner had truly and fully disclosed all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. In fact, in the reasons for reopening, there is not even a whisper as to what was […]
The signature of the appellant on season ticket, was not disputed by the Railways. Moreover, season ticket and the journey extension tickets, were recovered, from the appellant while removing him at Hospital. In the circumstances, non-production of Identity Card alongwith season ticket, itself would not render proper season ticket, invalid.
HC was not satisfied with cryptic unreasoned order three line order Passed by AO and Therefore, quashed and set aside the assessment order
Jar Productions Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Agreement executed between the petitioner and the ASCL shows that the approved production budget includes all costs in connection with the production services including the amount of Indian Goods and Services Tax Act. This shows that GST is included in all costs in connection […]
Bombay High Court confirms the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, ruling the Debt Recovery Tribunal lacks the legal power to restrict it.
It is clear that, the transactions in respect of trading in derivatives referred to in Clause (ac) of Section 2 of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 carried in a recognized stock exchange are excluded from the definition of ‘speculation transaction’ described under Section 43 (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
PCIT Vs . Universal Music India Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Issues (a) Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in holding that in the revision proceedings the CIT cannot travel beyond the reasons given by him for revision in the show-cause notice […]
Govind Ramling Solpure Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench) The questions that arise for consideration of this Court is, (i) whether Rule 44(1)(i) of the Rules is in conflict with sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 or not, (ii) whether the impugned circular dated 12.7.2021 issued by the respondent […]
