Hitech Corporation Ltd. (Formerly known as Hitech Plast Ltd.) Vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) It is settled law that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It […]
Kulgaon Badlapur Nagar Parishad Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (Bombay High Court) HC held that There is a purpose behind prescribing a limitation period to prefer an Appeal, by way of a statutory provision under any enactment. It is a period which is rightfully allocated to the aggrieved party to prefer an Appeal or […]
Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) Power vested in the commissioner under Section 151 of the Act to grant or not to grant approval to the Assessing Officer to re-open an assessment is coupled with duty and the commissioner is duty bound to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him […]
By his/her conduct, the Assessing Officer has compelled petitioner to knock at the doors of this Court and thereby has also impinged on the valuable judicial time of this Court. In our view, this is a fit case where this Assessing Officer should be saddled with substantial cost to drive home a message that this kind of attitude will not be tolerated ever.
Ingram Micro Inc. Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) The undisputed fact is that petitioner is not the purchaser of shares of THL. Respondent no.1 has failed to appreciate that the shares have been purchased by IMAHI, a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner and not by petitioner and, therefore, the question of Section 195 of the […]
Originative Trading Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The question that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the remedy of the petitioner to lodge his objection to the order of provisional attachment under section 83 read with Rule 159(1) of the CGST Rules can be effectively exercised without communication […]
Reopening of an assessment under Section 148 was not justified on the ground that AO was of the opinion that a contingency might arise in future resulting an escapement of income which would be wholly impermissible and would amount to a rewriting of the statutory provision.
Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan Vs National e-Assessment Centre (Bombay High Court) HC held that we are satisfied that the assessment order dated 14.05.2021 has been passed without granting proper and meaningful opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. It is not in dispute that as per show cause notice dated 10.04.2021 […]
Sanjay Vs The State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) In the present case, absolutely no reason is forthcoming, nor the respondents have come with case as to what was the cause for terminating the Part Time Chairmanship of the petitioner. The State Government can only exercise this power on the basis of any relevant and […]
Pigments & Allieds Vs Carboline (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) In the present case, on a fair reading of provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, as applicable in Maharashtra, it is evident under definition 2(d) that the agreement in question was required to be stamped when it was first executed. The agreement was first […]
