CIT Vs Jalaram Jagruti Development Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) It was held by ITAT that receipts in question cannot be brought to tax in A.Y. 2003-04 to 2005-06. These receipts have already been accounted for in the books of account and can be taxed only in the year in which project is complete as […]
High Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) 1. Although the situation in the State of Maharashtra because of the pandemic has improved over the last few days, access to the courts of law is yet not free. To ensure that persons suffering orders of dispossession, demolition, eviction, etc., passed […]
CIT Vs Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Here, on facts, the Tribunal noted that the AO only discussed the provisions of section 14A(l) but has not justified how the expenditure the Assessee incurred during the relevant year related to the income not forming part of its total income. The AO, according […]
Heritage Lifestyles and Developers And Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court) This is a case, where admittedly Petitioner could not file GST TRAN-1 on or before 27.12.2017 but had manually applied for GST TRAN-1 on 7.5.2018 as per Circular dated 03.04.2018 within the timeline as per the date extended by this Court. […]
Mumbai Fabrics P. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court) Question for consideration is whether the seized goods imported by the petitioner are old and used rubber tyres reusable as tyres or are old and used rubber tyres scrap being in pressed baled form? Evidently there is a dispute between the petitioner […]
Prathamesh Dream Properties P. Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise & others (Bombay High Court) The issue under consideration is whether petitioner should have the benefit of relief as a declarant under the ‘pending litigation category’ and thus entitled to refund of the amount paid? High Court states that a careful and conjoint […]
The issue under consideration is whether in SVLDR scheme we need to show the amount mentioned in the show cause-cum-demand notice or the amount determined by the adjudicating authority in the original order?
Blocking of importer exporter code of the petitioner by any authority other than the Director General of Foreign Trade or by his authorized officer under section 8 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 would be unauthorized, unwarranted and without jurisdiction.
Commissioner of Customs (II) Vs Poonam Courier Pvt. Limited (Bombay High Court) Remedy of appeal to the CESTAT is provided under section 129A of the Customs Act i.e., by the parent enactment. This right of appeal is a substantive right of an aggrieved person. It is not a matter of procedure but is a vested right […]
Ramchan Krunakaran Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Bombay High Court) In Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India, 2018(11) SCC 1, the Apex Court has reiterated the principle concerning grant of bail being the rule and refusal being exception and while dealing with Section 45 of the PMLA Act which imposes twin stringent condition for offences […]
