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 […]
Vivek Mehta Vs KaRRs Designs & Developments (Bombay High Court) In the present case, the MOU is executed on stamp paper of Rs.100/-. Thus, there is no question of the document being “unstamped”. It is at best insufficiently stamped and if a document is insufficiently stamped, then we have to consider the effect of the […]
PCIT Vs Indofil Industries Limited (Bombay High Court) The issue herein is regarding disallowance under Section 40(a) (ia) of the said Act for amount of Rs.1,08,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer had noted that Respondent had made a provision for commission for the Chairman and the Managing Director (CMD) of the Company for Rs.1,08,00,000/- at the year […]
Kishor Ramesh Sohoni Vs Union of India & Ors (Bombay High Court) Petitioner asks is for a direction to the RBI to replace the old currency notes since they were all along in custody of the police with valid current tender. HC exercises its equitable discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India […]
Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs Girish Dave, Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) (Bombay high court) Facts- The petitioner/assessee is a public limited company and an engineering conglomerate and carries out varied business activities through independent divisions. The petitioner had entered into a contract with the ONGC, whereunder the petitioner was awarded the contract for survey […]
Shalaka Infra-Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Division Bench of Justice R D Dhanuka and Justice S M Modak of the Bombay High Court has expressed its concern over the allegations made by several assessees in various petitions about the repeated summons issued by the GST authorities for the […]
It was held that there cannot be situation where two Assessing Officer would have simultaneous jurisdiction over the assessee. Accordingly, it was held that the Tribunal had rightly held that the issuance of notice under Section 148 (1) of the said Act by the non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer was without jurisdiction.
Hactom Agro Pvt Ltd. Vs National E Assessment Centre & ors (Bombay High Court) Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the assessment order passed in violation of the scheme under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court observed that assessing officer exceeded the jurisdiction in passing the assessment order […]
HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Bombay high court exposing serious flaw in reopening under section 148 in HDFC case (significance of tangible material for formulation of valid belief , fatal impact of difference in the reasons recorded on file and reasons placed for statutory approval under section 151 etc. “30. The position […]
