Dr. Surendra Manjrekar Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) IN this case F.I.R. itself shows that the deceased was taking treatment for his stress management. He was disturbed and in the disturbed state of mind he had committed suicide. So, there is possibility that his commission of suicide was a result of his mental […]
UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI (Bombay High Court) In the facts of this case also the respondents had issued a summons only on 30th August, 2019 i.e. after 30th June, 2019 and thus summons issued after the cut-off date of 30th June, 2019 could not be the ground for declaring the application filed by […]
Rajdeep Marketing Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer (Bombay High Court) HC observed that, If on identical reasons raised for Assessment Year 2012-13 petitioner’s explanation has been accepted and no addition made, certainly on the same ground, we wonder how an allegation of escapement of income can be made for the subsequent Assessment Years. In […]
M/s. UCN Cable Network (P) Ltd. Vs. Designated Committee under SVLDR Scheme, 2019 (Bombay High Court, Nagpur) Completion Of Investigation Not a Condition Precedent For Eligibility Under ‘Sabka Vishwas’ (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court while quashing the Designated Committee’s decision of rejecting declaration under the Amnesty SVLDR Scheme observed that […]
Divesh Prakashchand Jain Vs PCIT (Bombay High Court) We have perused the notice as well as the order passed by Respondent No.1 and in our view, there is no case made out for transferring Petitioner’s case to Bengaluru. Under Section 127(2) of the Act, where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case […]
Colgate Global Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) A Perusal of the impugned Order indicates that the Respondent No.3 has rejected the application for refund without recording any reasons, though the same is mandatory under Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. In our view, the […]
In view of absence of documentary evidence, and the findings and discussion hereinabove, the Petitioner cannot be granted MEIS benefit merely on the basis of pleadings which are prima facie insufficient on the face of record. Hence the Petition must fail.
Parinee Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) According to the JAO, survey report submitted by DDIT investigation indicate that interest should be charged at 12% per annum on loan given to sister concern totaling to Rs.4,17,04,380/- and therefore income chargeable to tax has been under assessed by the said amount. According to the […]
Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr. (Bombay High Court) 1. The order was passed on a plea by a company seeking quashing of a show cause notice which had not been adjudicated for 23 years and return of ₹2 crore which had been deposited by it under protest during […]
Alice Realties Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith, and the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. There is an Affidavit in Reply dated 31st December 2021 of one Nilesh B Suryawanshi, Resident Executive Engineer of the […]
