Bombay High Court held that conviction under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] without cogent evidence to prove demand of illegal gratification cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Bombay High Court quashed and set aside Form SVLDRS 3 demanding amount under arrears category and directed department to determine the correct amount considering the declaration filed under Litigation category.
Court held that dividend remains income of the shareholder and DDT is an additional income tax covered under Article 2, restricting India’s taxing rights to 10% under Article 11 of the India–UK DTAA.
Bombay High Court held that non-production of arrested person before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of the detention renders the arrest completely illegal and in violation of clause 2 of Article 23. Accordingly, the applicant would have to be released on bail.
The Court held that Form 9A was not applicable to Assessment Year 2015–16 and that the option under Section 11(1) had been validly exercised through Form 10B and the return. The rejection order was quashed.
The Court held that pre-deposits and amounts recovered during investigations must be verified before issuing SVLDRS-3. The decision emphasizes the committee’s duty to ensure accurate calculation under the Scheme.
The High Court held that investigation material showed prima facie involvement in unlawful tender cost increases. The ruling emphasized that such allegations warrant a full trial, not discharge.
The Court ruled that reassessment for a pre-CIRP period cannot continue when no claim was filed during CIRP and the approved resolution plan extinguished past dues. It held that post-approval tax demands are invalid.
The Court held that the negative blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A CGST was ultra vires, directing authorities to restore ₹5.56 lakh ITC within 15 days, reaffirming taxpayer rights.
The High Court sustained the exemption under Section 11 for a charitable trust, holding that doctors’ fees excluded from gross billing do not affect the 2% Indigent Patient Fund contribution. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
