Bombay High Court held that grant of approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality. Thus, proceedings u/s. 153A, based on approval u/s. 153D granted without application of mind, is vitiated.
Discharge was denied where a complaint and verification report indicated an alleged ₹1,000 bribe demand. The High Court confirmed that prima facie material suffices for framing charges. The case was allowed to proceed to trial despite procedural objections.
The Court held that insolvency law cannot be used to sidestep a maintenance order. It ruled that the petitioner’s plea lacked legal foundation and refused to declare him insolvent.
The Court held that earlier orders ignored relevant High Court decisions interpreting Rule 90(3). The refund claim must now be reconsidered afresh within a fixed timeline.
Bombay High Court held that customs duty paid on goods lost or rendered unavailable before the time of clearance for home consumptions is liable to be refunded back in terms of section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The Court held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed while the quantum appeal was still pending before the ITAT. The penalty was stayed for being premature under Section 275(1)(a).
Bombay High Court held that Brand Acquisition Agreement in respect of trademark –‘Crocin’ between parties is an agreement to Sale and such sale is not a sale within the State of Maharashtra hence not liable to sales tax @4% under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
The Court set aside notices issued manually by the JAO, holding that reassessment and issuance of Section 148 notices must follow the mandatory faceless mechanism under Section 151A. The ruling reinforces that the JAO has no concurrent jurisdiction.
The Court held that an appeal cannot be dismissed for pre-deposit deficiency without prior notice or opportunity to cure the defect. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.
The Court held that notices under Sections 148A and 148 issued by the JAO were invalid as the faceless procedure mandated by Section 151A was not followed. All impugned notices and orders were quashed.
