Presumption that Petitioner beneficiary of accommodation entries based on statement of third party was disproved. Consequently, onus would be on AO to provide reasons to disbelieve bank statements and supporting documents for reopening the assessment.
whether the contention of Petitioner that Petitioner was unaware of these dates and therefore could not attend the appeal should be accepted.
Kharghar Co-op. Housing Societies Federation Ltd Vs Municipal Commissioner (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court in the matter of property tax didn’t entertain the petition as effective and effacious remedy of filing an appeal under section 406 of the MMC Act available with the petitioner. Facts- Petitioner No.1 claims to be a federation of co-operative […]
Bombay High Court held that the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 is constitutionally valid. Accordingly, the state legislature has legislative competence to enact the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000.
Shawn Anthony Mendonca Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) 1. The applicant/accused is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 354A, 509, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, by this application, is challenging the Order dated 17/07/2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai rejecting his application for permission […]
CIT(A) in his order while rejecting Books of Account does not specify defect in record. The basis of rejection appears to be best judgment of assessment
Bombay High court held that SVLDR scheme is a dispute resolution scheme. The substantive benefit under the scheme cannot be denied for technical reasons.
44 EMB Studio Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though it is correct that for part of the claim which has been rejected refund was sought after a period of two years, however, the period was extended by the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court […]
Bombay High Court held that rejection of refund application without granting an opportunity of hearing is contrary to the proviso to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Act and hence rejection order is liable to be set aside.
There was no condition to furnish passport in order dated 15th January, 2020. He has furnished documents about business trip to Dubai. It is pertinent to note that the order granting anticipatory bail is challenged before this Court.
