The Bombay High Court dismissed an income tax appeal where the disputed claim was below the monetary threshold, highlighting that low tax effect alone can justify disposal when no exception applies.
The issue was whether exemption under Section 11 could be denied solely due to wrong data punching. The court ruled that inadvertent human errors cannot defeat a lawful exemption
Bombay High Court held that issuance of notice for demand of interest and penalty after obtaining discharge certificate under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [SVLDRS] is not tenable in law. Writ disposed of, accordingly.
Bombay High Court held that interest under section 25(4) of the GVAT on delayed payment of VAT on sales of High Bouquet Spirit (HBS)/Rectified Spirit (RS)/Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) justifiable in spite of uncertainty with regard to levy to be imposed on the same.
The court held that money demanded by a public servant was towards property tax arrears and not illegal gratification. Admissions by key witnesses justified refusal to interfere with the acquittal.
The Court refused to entertain a writ against an assessment order where an appeal remedy was available. Bypassing statutory remedies was held impermissible.
The judgment reiterates that reassessment cannot be initiated merely because the AO takes a different view later. Jurisdictional limits under tax law were strictly enforced.
The court held that reopening after four years based on a different view of the same expenditure amounts to a change of opinion. Absence of failure to disclose material facts made the reassessment invalid.
The court held that reopening beyond four years is invalid when the recorded reasons do not allege failure to disclose material facts. Full disclosure by the assessee barred reassessment.
The issue was whether additions could survive when no incriminating material was found during search proceedings. The court upheld the Tribunal’s view that Section 153A jurisdiction was invalid, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
