A detailed analysis of the Bombay High Court’s verdict in Mathuradas Narandas & Sons Forwarders Ltd. vs. CBDT, highlighting the significance of timely ITR filing.
Globolive 3D Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Introduction: The Bombay High Court recently delved into a significant issue concerning the nature of Satellite derived 3D model services. The core matter revolved around whether such services should be categorized as Online Information Database Access or Retrieval (OIDAR) services or considered as an […]
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that writ under Article 226 would be maintainable if the Order has been passed beyond the Show Cause Notice as the action of an authority is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice and in such case the Petitioners should not be relegated to an alternative remedy.
Analysis of Bombay HC ruling in Naroli Resorts vs ACIT on reopening tax assessment after four years. Did the assessee disclose all material facts?
Bombay High Court held that the transaction of payment of royalty for use of technology is inextricably linked with manufacturing activity and should be aggregated with other international transactions in the manufacturing segment for the purposes of benchmarking the same
Bombay High Court held that validity of circular no. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17 September 2004 cannot be examined vide the present petition as the same is already subject matter of contention in the show cause notice issued to one of the petitioner’s member M/s. Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd. and hence designated officer will adjudicate the same.
HC set aside order passed by Assistant Commissioner and held that revenue officers are required to follow principles of judicial discipline and accordingly are bound by decisions of Appellate Authority.
Bombay High Court held that Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which is simplicitor for a money claim is not maintainable. Accordingly, present writ relating to recovery of excess charges paid towards excise supervisory staff is also not maintainable.
Bombay High Court held that if the reasons for re-opening the assessment are based on incorrect facts or conclusions, the notice issued under section 148 of the income Tax Act for re-opening cannot be sustained.
Bombay High Court granted the stay on customs demand on account of pending of the review petition before the Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd.
