CIDCO were the best judge to consider compliance with technical and financial conditions. MSETCL was consulted by CIDCO, both on account of the fact that the project had been undertaken by CIDCO on behalf of MSETCL as well as the execution of the same under the supervision of MSETCL. Therefore, the order of CIDCO was upheld in holding BNC to be technically qualified.
Petitioner approached HC against order passed by appellate authority as GST Tribunal has not been constituted till date. Revenue contended that writ petition should not be admitted in wake of alternate remedy.
Chandra Developers Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Whether the commissioner could issue show cause notice when the discharge certificate has not been withdrawn by the designated committee, the enquiry was not initiated prior to 30.06.2019 (cut off date). The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. The petitioner was a service provider. It […]
Bombay High Court held that present case is not a case of lack of enquiry, however, it can be a case of inadequate enquiry. Accordingly, inadequacy of enquiry does not give jurisdiction to the CIT to invoke provisions of Section 263 prior to the insertion of Explanation 2.
Bombay High Court dismissed the present petition as petitioner has the option to file a statutory appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and there is no reason why petitioner cannot avail of the statutory remedy of appeal.
HC observed that against judgment of High Court of Delhi in case of Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., appeal is pending before Supreme Court solely on the point of limitation. Thus, prima facie, Revenue has impliedly conceded that pre-consultation is mandatory.
Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed and set aside as original assessment was completed after considering all the facts and material.
Bombay High Court rejected the pre-arrest bail as premature as the apprehension of the applicant that he will be arrested is without any basis.
The impugned notice, other than merely quoting that the Insight portal contains information as stated by the Assessing Officer in his reasons for the reopening, does not further investigate the information or come to an independent assessment connecting the petitioner to the particular transactions specified in the information.
Reopening of the assessment based on a different method of computation or application of the section was nothing else but a change of opinion as there was no failure to make a full and true disclosure ans the same was impermissible in law.
