Search
Advanced Search Search with field filters
/adv
Navigation
Home Go to homepage
/home
Direct Tax Income Tax resources
GST GST Acts, Rules & Case Laws
Company Law Companies Act & SEBI
Due Date Tracker Statutory compliance deadlines
/due
Due Date Calendar Calendar view of compliance deadlines
Daily Digest Today's tax updates and articles
/digest
Landmark Rulings

Bombay High Court — Direct Tax

1,071 rulings

  1. Bombay High Court · 19 Jan 2022
    To grant or not to grant approval under Section 151 of the said Act to re-open an assessment is coupled with a duty and the Commissioner was duty bound to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Such power cannot be exercised casually, in a routine and perfunctory manner.

    GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14 (1) (2) & ORS.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28187 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86371&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  2. Bombay High Court · 18 Jan 2022
    Assessee had disclosed the details of international transactions and details regarding royalty paid and lump sum fees for know-how paid to Skoda Auto and fees for technical services paid to Volkswagen in Form 3CEB.

    Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs Asistant Commisioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28184 (HC-BOMBAY)

  3. Bombay High Court · 15 Jan 2022
    Reopening of assessment based on all the primary fact which were available at the time of original assessment with a view to take another view is a case of change of opinion and the same is prohibited

    Trent Ltd Vs The Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax-2(3)

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28160 (HC-BOMBAY)

  4. Bombay High Court · 13 Jan 2022
    The jurisdictional conditions are not satisfied before the issuance of notice under Section 148

    THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD. VERSUS NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE/NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE & ORS.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28154 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86333&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  5. Bombay High Court · 13 Jan 2022
    If the Assessing Officer has to record the consideration bestowed by him on all issues raised during the assessment proceedings even where he is satisfied, then it would be impossible for the Assessing Officer to complete all the assessments which are required to be scrutinized by him under section 143 (3).

    PREETHI KITCHEN APPLIANCES PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10 (3) (2) , MUMBAI

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28153 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86334&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  6. Bombay High Court · 12 Jan 2022
    The AO made a false statement that the assessee’s submissions and objections were carefully considered and dealt with whereas they were not dealt with.

    Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited Vs Income Tax Oficer

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28152 (HC-BOMBAY)

  7. Bombay High Court · 12 Jan 2022
    Impugned Notice u/s 148 are wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed.

    SHARVAH MULTITRADE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (3) (1) & ANR.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28147 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86314&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  8. Bombay High Court · 12 Jan 2022
    Where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the AO it would not be open to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view.

    RAVI KANAIYALAL SHETH VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 (3) (1) & ORS.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28146 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86315&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  9. Bombay High Court · 12 Jan 2022
    We are satisfied that petitioner had truly and fully disclosed all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment.

    VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LTD.) VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, UNION OF INDIA

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28145 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86317&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  10. Bombay High Court · 12 Jan 2022
    Using the words 'failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts', is clearly made only as an attempt to take the case out of the restrictions imposed by the proviso (1) to section 147 of the Act.

    BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 (1) (1) AND TWO ORS.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28144 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86318&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  11. Bombay High Court · 12 Jan 2022
    It is not even prima facie the case of the Assessing Officer that there was failure on part of petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts, this Court has to interfere by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

    STCI FINANCE LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (3) (1) , MUMBAI AND ANR.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28143 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86320&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  12. Bombay High Court · 08 Jan 2022
    The Revenue official under VsV Act has no authority to dispose of the revision application filed by Assessee u/s 264 which was filed with a request for condonation of delay and was pending adjudication on the date of declaration under VsV Act.

    Dhanraj Malchand Rathi Vs Union of India

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28122 (HC-BOMBAY)

  13. Bombay High Court · 04 Jan 2022
    When on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to reopen the assessment based on the very same material with a view to take another view.

    SANJAY DEVKINANDAN GUPTA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28088 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86278&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  14. Bombay High Court · 01 Jan 2022
    Prior approval is the sine qua non for issuance of notice u/s 148.

    Svitzer Hazira Pvt. Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28055 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 151

  15. Bombay High Court · 29 Dec 2021
    Once resolution plan is approved a new claim cannot be raised by the revenue.

    Murli Industries Limited Vs Asistant Commisioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28042 (HC-BOMBAY)

  16. Bombay High Court · 25 Dec 2021
    Failure to follow the procedure u/s 144C(1) of the Act would be a jurisdictional error and not merely procedural error or a mere irregularity.

    Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Aditional/Joint/Deputy/Asistant Commisioner of IncomeTax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28019 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 144C (1)

  17. Bombay High Court · 23 Dec 2021
    HC - Writ Dismissed - Rejection of applications under VsV Act on the grounds of pending criminal proceedings justified.

    Reliance Industries Limited Vs Chief Commisioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27997 (HC-BOMBAY)

  18. Bombay High Court · 21 Dec 2021
    HC - Writ dismissed - Prima facie the ingredients of the offences u/s 276C(1) were satisfied - No prerequisite that detailed reasons for sanctioning prosecution to be given.

    Nayan Jayantilal Balu Vs Union of India

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27981 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 276C

  19. Bombay High Court · 21 Dec 2021
    HC - Cost of raising floor of water-logging prone warehouse resulted in the benefit of continued business and increased compensation from the customer and as such the expenditure to be related conduct of Assessee’s business and integral part of profit earning process, and thus revenue in nature.

    Jetha Properties Private Limited Vs The Commisioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27979 (HC-BOMBAY)

  20. Bombay High Court · 14 Dec 2021
    In the instant matter, it was not a case where the Assessee had not disclosed any information, thus, the pre- condition for reopening of assessment as per proviso to Section 147 was not complied with.

    Grasim Industries Limited Vs Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27937 (HC-BOMBAY)

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.


An unhandled error has occurred. Reload ×

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

The session has been paused by the server.

Failed to resume the session.
Please retry or reload the page.