Divesh Prakashchand Jain Vs PCIT (Bombay High Court) We have perused the notice as well as the order passed by Respondent No.1 and in our view, there is no case made out for transferring Petitioner’s case to Bengaluru. Under Section 127(2) of the Act, where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case […]
Colgate Global Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) A Perusal of the impugned Order indicates that the Respondent No.3 has rejected the application for refund without recording any reasons, though the same is mandatory under Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. In our view, the […]
In view of absence of documentary evidence, and the findings and discussion hereinabove, the Petitioner cannot be granted MEIS benefit merely on the basis of pleadings which are prima facie insufficient on the face of record. Hence the Petition must fail.
Parinee Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) According to the JAO, survey report submitted by DDIT investigation indicate that interest should be charged at 12% per annum on loan given to sister concern totaling to Rs.4,17,04,380/- and therefore income chargeable to tax has been under assessed by the said amount. According to the […]
Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr. (Bombay High Court) 1. The order was passed on a plea by a company seeking quashing of a show cause notice which had not been adjudicated for 23 years and return of ₹2 crore which had been deposited by it under protest during […]
Alice Realties Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith, and the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. There is an Affidavit in Reply dated 31st December 2021 of one Nilesh B Suryawanshi, Resident Executive Engineer of the […]
Futurist Innovation & Advertising Vs Union of India And Others (Bombay High Court) Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Radha Krishan Industries (supra) has dealt with this issue in detail and has approved the decision taken by Gujarat High Court in case of Valerius Industries Vs. Union of India. It is held by the Hon’ble […]
This Court in the judgment in the case of Thought Blurb (supra) accordingly reiterated the principles laid down by this Court in case of Capgemini Technology Services Limited (supra) and also followed the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in case of Vaishali Sharma vs. Union of India and held that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the scheme as its intent is to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes under central excise and service tax and to allow the business to make a fresh beginning.
Oracle Financial Services Software Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Existence of the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is a jurisdictional condition for invoking the power under section 147 of the Act, 1961, both within and beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. […]
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Respondents filed Central Excise Writ Petition No. 60 of 2018 against the Petitioner and was pending before this Court. On 27/12/2019, the Petitioner opted for settling the said SVLDR scheme by filing necessary SVLDRS-1 declaration. The said application however was rejected on the […]
