. Respondent nos.4 and 5 shall also explain why the concerned officer, who is delaying the refund, should not be penalized in as much as why he should not be directed to pay the interest from his pocket on the refund. We note this because though petitioner will be getting refund with 6% interest, it is public money that is being used to pay the interest.
CA. Manisha Mehta Vs The Board of Directors of Represented by its Managing Director of ICICI Bank and ors. (Bombay High Court) The main prayer of the petitioners is for a declaration that natural justice should be read into section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The SARFAESI Act is intended to facilitate quick recovery of […]
Goregaon Sports Club Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) It is one of those blatant cases of breach of principles of natural justice and total non application of mind. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer is referring to a show cause notice dated 12th April 2021 by which the DAO proposed modification in returned income […]
Since we are in respectful agreement with the reasons recorded and views taken by the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court and Madras High Court, in the cases referred hereinabove, and for reasons noted above, all these writ petitions listed above are disposed by allowing the same. The explanations to the Notification No.20 of 2021 dated 31st March 2021 and Notification No.38 of 2021 dated 27th April 2021 are declared ultra vires and are, therefore, bad in law and null and void.
Poorti Rent a Car and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Provisions of the SARFAESI Act can be applied even in respect of loan agreements entered into before such enactment was brought into force, we see nothing in any law to hold that the provisions thereof can never be resorted […]
Gondia Beedi Leaves Contractors Association Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) It is admitted that the re-sale of Tendu leaves, as it is without any process, after purchase from the Forest Department would amount to trading which does not qualify for exemption under sub-section (1A) of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. It […]
CIT Vs Shankar Krishnan (Bombay High Court) Whether Notional Interest on Security Deposit paid by employer for accommodation of its employee will also be included while calculating perquisites. BRIEF FACTS: 1. The Assessee is a salaried employee with McKinley & Company Inc., India. The Assessee was provided with rent free accommodation in Cuffe Parade, Mumbai […]
Sonia Fazal Khan Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) In this case Asif (Son) says that although his parents are alive, there are two flats and both are what he describes as ‘a shared household’ and therefore he, the son, has some sort of enforceable legal right or entitlement to either or both of […]
Admittedly, the assessee who was an individual in that case was not carrying on any business and the remuneration and interest received by the assessee from the partnership firm cannot be termed to be a turn over of the assessee (individual).
Hitech Corporation Ltd. (Formerly known as Hitech Plast Ltd.) Vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) It is settled law that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It […]
