The Bombay High Court held that when sales are accepted, entire bogus purchases cannot be added; only profit difference is taxable in the case of traders.
Bombay High Court held that delay in filing of Form No. 10 was condoned since activities of trust are genuine and denial of benefit of accumulation u/s. 11(2) due to delay in Form No. 10 would cause genuine hardship.
Bombay High Court held that no hypothetical income of the assessee could have been brought to tax. Accordingly, income not accrued due to cancellation of sale agreement. Thus, order upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
Bombay High Court held that order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission passed after imposition of moratorium u/s. 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot have binding effect of the company. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
The Court found reassessment action void as sanction was not granted by the competent authority and directed the Department to share the approval copy with the assessee
Bombay HC directed tax department to issue Form GST PMT-03 after denying a refund, ensuring taxpayer’s Electronic Credit Ledger is re-credited within 15 days. Court left the issue of interest open for departmental consideration.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 were void as notices were not validly served and proper approval from PCCIT was not obtained.
Bombay High Court set aside reassessment proceedings for AY 2016–17 as the sanction was granted by an unauthorized officer, holding that approval must come from senior authorities under Section 151(ii).
Bombay High Court held that reassessment for AY 2016–17 was invalid as the sanction was not obtained from the competent authority mandated under Section 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act.
Court held that authorities cannot block Input Tax Credit accrued after the date of action, directing restoration of ₹1.43 crore to the taxpayer while upholding blockage of earlier credit.
