The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that the Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized time and again that the Orders pursuant to a Personal Hearing either by the Court or the Tribunal or any quasi-judicial body ought to be passed expeditiously and within a reasonable time.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jaya Hind Sciaky Limited held that the words belonging to as used in sec 40(2) of the Act would include assets in possession of the Company without full Ownership
CIT Vs. V/s. M/s. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) In terms of Chapter X of the Act, redetermination of the consideration is to be done only with regard to income arising from International Transactions on determination of ALP.
CIT Vs. Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products (Bombay High Court) (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that commission payments made to nonresident sales agents on which no tax was deducted is not disallowable u/s. 40(a)(i)?
CIT Vs. V/s. M/s. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Whether on the facts and the circumstance of the case and law, the Tribunal was justified in law in restricting the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment only to the transaction between the Associated Enterprises (AEs.)?
In the case of Advance Netways Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hon’ble Bombay High Court denied to interfere in the order of CESTAT who directed to deposit 50 % of total duty payable and 10 % out of penalty payable.
In case of DIT (E) Vs. M/s Jasubhai Foundation, BOmbay High Court upheld the decision of ITAT in which it was held that section 10 and section 11, though mentioned in same chapter, but conditions mentioned in both sections are mutually exclusive from each other.
CIT vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (Bombay High Court) The three grounds which have been projected and emphasised pertain to treatment of total income as income from house property and allowing deduction under section 24 ignoring the fact that the income was received from the business asset (unsold flats) shown as closing stock.
CIT Vs. M/s Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. (Bombay High Court) In this case Hon’ble Court considered question of law that whether claim for set off of unabsorbed business loss which was brought forward in subsequent AY against the profit of section 10 A is allowable or not.
Bombay High Court held In the case of M/s Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd. vs. DCIT that Section 292 uses the word ‘may presume’ and not ‘shall presume’ or ‘conclusively presume’. The words ‘may presume’ are in the nature of discretionary presumption different from a compulsory presumption.
