Bombay High Court held that as per clause (xiii) of section 144B(1), reply can be filed by the assessee on the date and time as specified or within the extended time. Accordingly, shutting down the window before completion of extended time limit is unjustified. Hence, assessment order liable to be quashed.
Bombay High Court held that that since revenue authorities have not registered their claim/attachment order with CERSAI, they cannot claim priority over dues of the Government.
Bombay High Court held that since the Assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment in India, income earned by it as business profit would not be taxable in India by virtue of the provisions of Article 7 of the India-Malaysia DTAA.
Bombay High Court addressed the issue of the time limit for filing appeals to the tribunal. The court held that the appeal must be made within three months from the date of constitution of the Appellate Tribunal.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tact Act unsustainable as there is no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment nor there is any tangible material.
Bombay High Court held that certificates issued by the Singapore Tax Authorities certifying that capital gain income would be brought to tax in Singapore is sufficient evidence for accepting the legal position.
In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court granted the prayer of an assessee in GST proceedings to have their advocate present at a visible but not audible distance during interrogation. Learn more about the court’s decision and its implications.
Read about the Bombay High Court’s ruling in the case of Sunlight Cable Industries vs. The Commissioner of Customs NS II And 2 Ors., directing the refund of IGST along with interest at 7%. Analysis of the court’s decision and its implications.
Bombay High Court held that provisional attachment under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ceases to exist after a period of one year.
Read about the Bombay High Court’s recent judgment in Kamlesh Kumar Mishra vs State of Maharashtra, allowing an advocate’s presence during interrogation under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
