Bombay High Court held that conversion of limited enquiry of classification of goods in respect of Advance Rulings into an appellate enquiry is not permissible to be undertaken in writ jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court held that exercise of power under Article 226 untenable as remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal available to the petitioner challenging forfeiture of earnest money deposit.
Bombay High Court held that as arrest memo needs to contain the gist of offence alleged to have been committed Absence of the same, makes arrest memo bereft of necessary particulars. Accordingly, bail granted to the applicant.
Brightcareer Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) HC quashed proceedings under Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 for transactions prior to 25-10-2016 1. The petitioner in the present case, apart from challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, has also challenged the […]
Adisan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, Pune -1 Commissionerate, Pune dated 31 May 2022 rejecting the claim of the Petitioners for refund due to account of Input Tax Credit accumulated due to inverted duty structure. The procedure […]
Hemant Nevandram Lalwani Vs ITO (TDS) (Bombay High Court) 1. A complaint u/s. 276B, r/w. section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relevant to the Financial Year 2016-17, has been filed and is pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s 38th Court at Mumbai. The said complaint has been filed against […]
Kusharaj Madhav Bhandary Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) It is the case of the Petitioner that the Order of the assessment was passed on 30 March 2022, in which a demand was raised against the Petitioner. The said Order of assessment was not challenged by the Petitioner. With a view to seek benefit of immunity […]
AO could have taxed the accrued income or re-opened the assessment within four years. A mere incorrect claim based on full disclosures cannot be reassessed after four years by invoking sections 147 and 148 of the IT act.
Bombay High Court held that there is limited scope of challenging the order of the settlement commission. Order of settlement commission cannot be challenged as if the order passed under an ordinary adversarial adjudication or as if the appellate power is being exercised.
Bombay High Court held that once the eligibility of complying with the provisions of section 194(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act is established, the Octroi Inspector is duty-bound in law to issue-certify such declaration to the Petitioner. However failure to provide a declaration of duty certified by the octroi officer would not render the Petitioner ineligible for a refund of octroi paid.
