Bombay High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s. Sunny Sounds P. Ltd. that however these references are undoubtedly made by the tribunal, they emanate from an application by one of the parties before it , giving rise to the question of law requiring the opinion of the court.
Bombay High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. that court has consistently taken a view that the tribunal has power to extend the stay even after the substituted third proviso to section 254 (2A) was introduced.
Even in case of substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act which restricts the power of the ITAT to grant stay beyond 365 days “even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee” has been struck down in Pepsi Foods 376 ITR 87 (Del) as being arbitrary
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.
