The court held that money demanded by a public servant was towards property tax arrears and not illegal gratification. Admissions by key witnesses justified refusal to interfere with the acquittal.
The Court refused to entertain a writ against an assessment order where an appeal remedy was available. Bypassing statutory remedies was held impermissible.
The judgment reiterates that reassessment cannot be initiated merely because the AO takes a different view later. Jurisdictional limits under tax law were strictly enforced.
The court held that reopening after four years based on a different view of the same expenditure amounts to a change of opinion. Absence of failure to disclose material facts made the reassessment invalid.
The court held that reopening beyond four years is invalid when the recorded reasons do not allege failure to disclose material facts. Full disclosure by the assessee barred reassessment.
The issue was whether additions could survive when no incriminating material was found during search proceedings. The court upheld the Tribunal’s view that Section 153A jurisdiction was invalid, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
The Court held that failure to pass a speaking order after remand violates statutory obligations and frustrates appellate remedies, directing authorities to decide the matter within a fixed timeline.
Bombay High Court held that in terms of section 5(1) read with Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] Provisional Attachment Order ceases to have any effect after 180 days.
The High Court set aside an order rejecting release of seized jewellery after finding it was passed by an officer who lacked jurisdiction. The application was directed to be reconsidered by the proper assessing authority.
The High Court held that the tax department cannot deny set-off of short-term capital loss when the same claim was accepted in factually identical connected cases. Consistency in tax treatment was upheld.
