Bombay High Court held that being in retail business of electronic appliances, cash deposits from various places cannot be doubted be considered suspicious transactions. Accordingly, cash deposits in crores cannot lead to a belief that the income has escaped assessment. Re-opening unjustified.
Bombay High Court held that re-assessment proceedings, in absence of any failure to disclose any material fact and without any new tangible material which was not available at the time of passing of the original assessment order, is unsustainable.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceedings invalid as there was no failure on the part of the assesse to disclose any material facts.
Tyre burst is not an act of God but a consequence of negligence and the Driver/ Insurance company cannot be exonerated for the same.
Innovative Antares Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Rejects Revenues contention that the payment could not be made beyond 30.06.2020 (due date). Rejects Revenues contention that the SVLDR Scheme is over The petitioner was a trader and service provider. It filed declaration under the SVLDR Scheme. The Form 3 was issued calling […]
Bombay High Court deferred the hearing in the matter of levy of VAT or GST on Extra Neutral Alcohol as matter already pending before Supreme Court.
Merely because petitioner failed to submit grounds of appeal as an attachment at the time of filing its memo of appeal in Form No. 35, could not be a basis for appellate authority to pass order ex-parte especially when submissions sufficiently reflected the grounds on which order of assessment was being challenged in appeal proceedings.
Mehboob Jaffer Ali Shaikh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Bombay High Court) 1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2023 preferred by the Applicant against the Judgment and order dated 12/01/2023 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Greater Bombay in Special Case No.116 of 2013. The applicant […]
HP Adhesives Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay high court) The Petitioner applied under the SVLDRS Scheme. The application was rejected on the ground that redemption fine is not covered under section 125 of the SVLDR Scheme. Accordingly, the petition was filed against such rejection. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay set aside such rejection […]
Prakash Tatoba Toraskar Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) In this case initial notice under Section 148 was in the name of the deceased and so was the subsequent communication dated 20 May 2022 purporting to be a notice in terms of Section 148A(b), it is settled law that notice issued under Section 148 of the […]
