Bombay High Court sets aside a CESTAT order due to a two-year delay between the decision date and pronouncement date. The ruling relies on principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court precedent in Whirlpool Corporation to allow the writ petition.
Bombay High Court held that invocation of provisions of Rule 86-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and blocking of Input Tax Credit not justified since Input Tax Credit available in Electronic Credit Ledger was ‘NIL’. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Bombay High Court admits Revenue’s appeal against ITAT. Issues concern if contracts reallocated to JV members require TDS (S. 194C) and where profit should be taxed.
Bombay High Court confirms that an assessment order isn’t ‘erroneous’ if AO applied his mind. Court dismissed PCIT’s appeal against Gehna Jewellers.
Bombay High Court admits PCIT appeal against ITAT deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(3) for excess cash payments, questioning reliance on a specific precedent.
This Income Tax appeal addressed whether a 5% infrastructure fee should be deducted based on gross bills or actual cash receipts. The Bombay High Court upheld the lower authorities decision, emphasizing that the expenditures deduction must strictly follow the contractual clause, which explicitly linked the 5% payment to total receipts, thereby restricting the allowable deduction.
Bombay High Court admits challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act on supplier tax default, granting conditional stay amid conflicting High Court rulings on ITC validity.
The Bombay High Court set aside an order denying Vesava Koli Samaj Shikshan Sanstha’s request to condone a 181-day delay in filing Form 10B for AY 2019-20, citing genuine cause.
Bombay High Court held that denial of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act for delay of mere 29 days in filing of Form No. 10B is not justifiable since denial of exemption is likely to cause genuine hardship to the Charitable Trust.
Re-testing of seized goods under Public Notice No.97/2017 was a facilitative right and could not be denied except on exceptional grounds duly recorded. Customs’ objection based on limitation and remnant sample requirement was also rejected and fresh sampling and re-testing was directed, with provisional release of goods permitted.
