The Court refused bail in a disproportionate assets case after noting allegations that assets worth ₹82.38 crore exceeded known sources of income by about 1152%. Issues relating to valuation and income justification were left for trial.
The Bombay High Court held that detention beyond the statutory period before production before a Magistrate violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 Cr.P.C. The arrest and remand orders were declared illegal.
The Bombay High Court held that the arrest memos did not satisfy the statutory requirements for arrest under the CrPC. The Court granted interim bail after finding non-compliance with mandatory legal safeguards.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal’s view that a reference under Section 55A was invalid where the assessee’s valuation was higher than the fair market value. The appeal was dismissed as no question of law arose.
The Bombay High Court held that a DVO reference under Section 55A was invalid because the assessee’s declared value was higher than the fair market value. The ruling reiterates the scope of Section 55A as it existed before the 2012 amendment.
The Bombay High Court held that an assessee cannot avoid tax merely because the same amount was taxed in another entity’s hands when the income actually belonged to the assessee. The Court upheld the addition of ₹1.71 crore arising from under-invoiced export transactions.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST adjudication order passed a day after an interim stay, accepting the State’s statement that the officer was unaware of the court’s order. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, with all legal issues kept open.
The Bombay High Court held that compensation awarded under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act cannot be subjected to TDS because Section 96 of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act exempts such awards from income tax. The Court quashed orders directing 10% TDS deduction.
The Court observed that the authority rejected the refund claim without recording specific findings on the issues raised. The dispute was remanded for fresh examination and a speaking order.
The Bombay High Court set aside a penalty order under Section 271-D after finding that the controversy was squarely covered by its earlier decisions. The Court followed established precedents and allowed the writ petition.
