In a judgement dated 19-01-2015 in the case of CIT-8 Vs. Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd., the Hon’ble Bombay High Court while dismissing the appeal, passed stringent strictures and gave directions to the Revenue Authorities when the Revenue choose to persist with the Appeal
CIT v Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd- Bombay HC observed that the appeals filed by the Revenue was in a very causal manner without indicating the basis of the challenge. Further, it was observed that Rule of law implies certainty of law.
In the case of CIT v Trend Electronics, Bombay Court held that before issuance of reopening notice for assessment, the Revenue have to furnish the reasons for it. Otherwise, the notice will be considered as bad in Law.
Dhimant Hiralal Thakar vs CIT (Bombay High Court)- Eyes are thus essential not only for the purpose of business or profession but for purposes other than these which are so many. It is therefore clear that the said expenditure as claimed by the applicant is not in the nature of the expenditure wholly
Kolkatta High Court held in Navin Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT(A) that for the conclusion of search, date of last panchnama was to be seen provided keys had been handed over to the assessee. If the keys were still with the department it meant that department could resume the search any time if necessary irrespective of the fact that only restraint order was vacated on the latter date.
The Bombay High Court has held in the case of TNT India private Limited v. Principal CIT that Writ Petition could be allowed if the due procedure have not been followed while suspending the registration under Regulation 14 of Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998.
In the case of CIT vs. Smt.Datta Mahendra Shah, Bombay High court held that once department has accepted decision of ITAT given in case of assessee’s son then decision given by ITAT on identical fact in assessee case has also to be accepted by department, since department works as a single unit
In the case of Sandvik Asia Limited vs. DCIT, Bombay High Court held that the payment made by the Appellant in its nature is different from a payment made to protect the property. In fact, Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v/s. CIT 27 ITR 34
It was argued that the above decisions were accepted by CBDT and the due date was extended in the respective territories of the High Court’s jurisdiction. Hon’ble HC after considering the above two judgments held that held that it is very unfair that benefit regarding an all India statute is restricting its benefit to only two states and one Union territory.
The Hon’ble Bombay HC in the case of CIT vs. Dempo and Co. P. Ltd that when the non- resident payee is assessable under special provisions contained in Sec 172 , then the payer cannot be made responsible for deducting tax at source on the payments made to non-resident.
