Bombay High Court held that once appellate authorities delete a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), no substantial question of law arises. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
Bombay High Court quashed reassessment notices and order for AY 2018 19 after finding they were issued to a deceased individual, explaining that jurisdiction requires serving a living person.
The Court restrained recovery of VAT interest from United Spirits, observing uncertainty on whether Extra Neutral Alcohol falls under VAT or new tax regime.
The Bombay High Court quashed the AAR’s ruling that denied Mauritius DTAA benefits to Bid Services Division (Mauritius) Limited. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to treaty protection on capital gains from the sale of MIAL shares. It ruled that legitimate corporate structures cannot be disregarded merely for resulting in tax advantages.
Court stayed reassessment notices issued under Section 148, holding that proceedings must comply with the amended faceless regime under the Finance Act, 2021.
Bombay High Court granted interim relief to a co-operative credit society, restraining coercive tax recovery in a Section 80P deduction dispute.
Bombay High Court held reassessment invalid for A.Y. 2017–18 as approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the higher authority required under Section 151(ii).
The Bombay High Court stayed orders treating PCMC as an assessee in default for not deducting TDS on issuance of TDRs, holding that Section 194LA applies only to monetary compensation.
The Bombay High Court ruled that the Assessing Officer’s steps under Section 148A, taken despite a continuing stay order, were illegal and directed refund adjustment amounts to be deposited in court.
Bombay High Court set aside the Section 148 notice, reiterating that only the Faceless Assessing Officer possesses the statutory power to issue it. The ruling was based on the binding precedent of the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision.
