Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years without failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court granted refund to the petitioner along with Interest from year 1988 for the cash which was seized without any corroboration and the said cash was also duly reflected in Income Tax Returns.
The Bombay High Court upheld the income tax deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) for an Industrial Park project. The court considered the approval granted by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and rejected the AO’s disallowance based on an erroneous report.
The petitioner would not have delayed the return as it was entitled for a refund. Cause of justice should not be defeated for technicalities.
Bombay HC sets aside tax refund rejection of Wallem Shipmanagement. Court cites COVID-19 disruptions and upholds principles of natural justice
Bombay High Court held that after the recognition of the first charge of the assessee as a secured creditor, the charge of the Sales Tax Department to recover the sales tax dues would be valid.
Bombay High Court held that the amount of tax refunded to the Petitioner, including interest, is to be reduced while determining the amount of disputed tax under KVSS as the Petitioner had not disclosed and calculated tax properly.
In a tax case of Rajesh Poddar Vs ITO, the Bombay High Court set aside the order and directed re-adjudication due to failure in providing reasons for reopening the assessment.
Read how Bombay High Court ruled in favor of New Age Buildtech Pvt Ltd, quashing invalid notices issued in the name of non-existent company ERP Infra Pvt Ltd.
Bombay High Court held that different view by Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) in case of another Applicant cannot be ground for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
