In-depth analysis of Bombay High Court’s ruling in the C.P. Pandey & Co vs Commissioner of State Tax case concerning GST registration cancellation.
Saket Agarwal Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Introduction: In a significant decision, the Bombay High Court has clarified the jurisdictional boundaries concerning Section 83 of the Maharashtra State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act). In the case of Saket Agarwal Vs Union of India, the court found that the State Tax […]
Explore the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Prakash vs ITO on Section 54/54F exemption for property sales. This case involves the deceased assessee, Timaji Dhanjode, who sold agricultural lands and faced challenges regarding capital gains tax and exemptions.
Manjula D. Rita Vs PCIT (Bombay High Court) Introduction: In a significant legal decision, the Bombay High Court has ruled on the case of Manjula D. Rita vs. PCIT, addressing the issue of tax recovery from a deceased director of a company. The court’s verdict emphasized the importance of due process and evidence in such […]
Bombay High Court held that attachment of saving bank account and detention of goods in absence of duty demand without service of notice is also without jurisdiction and without any authority of law.
Bombay High Court held that even if the assessee has failed to maintain a separate account it was entitled to reverse proportionate Cenvat Credit. The option of paying an amount equal to 10% of the value of exempted goods could not have been enforced on the assessee.
Exploring Siemens Financial Services vs DCIT Bombay High Court case that clarified role of specified authority in reassessment approvals and impermissibility of changes in opinion.
Bombay High Court held that AO and the Tribunal have allowed part of the commission payment as business expenditure. However, disallowance of part of commission payment as business expenditure unjustified.
Bombay High Court held that dismissal of appeal without hearing the case on merits merely on the ground that matter is remanded back by Commissioner (A) unjustified as remand was only for limited purpose of re-quantification of customs duty.
Bombay High Court held that filing of refund application u/s. 27 of the Customs Act after more than two years of date on which excess duty payment was done is clearly beyond the period of one year as contemplated by the Customs Act and hence is barred by limitation.
