Stay updated
Section 83(1) mandates that any provisional attachment order must contain reasons for the Commissioner’s decision to protect the government’s revenue and failure to provide such reasons renders the provisional attachment order invalid.
IGST refund can be granted to the exporter after deducting differential duty for opting higher duty drawback
Hon’ble Bombay High Court ruled that the petitioner, a company involved in LNG regasification, couldn’t claim input tax credit (ITC) for constructing a breakwater wall.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Piramal Enterprises Ltd held that clauses of business transfer agreement should be understood with the context it is entered into by parties, pick and choose approach adopted by the revenue to dissect the agreement, giving it a different meaning then by which it is entered into, is not sustainable, set aside the demand.
The Honorable Bombay High Court in the case of NRB Bearings ltd. allowed the petition while permitting the Taxpayer to rectify FORM GSTR-1 and held that in cases of bonafide errors in filing returns where no loss of revenue occurs, the technicalities should not prevent rectification.
Recently, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that transit rent paid by a developer to a flat owner or tenant is not in the nature of rent but is akin to a hardship allowance, rehabilitation allowance or displacement allowance.
The Bombay high court has refused anticipatory bail to Manish Sen, who allegedly deceived job seekers into opening multiple bank accounts that were used for high-value transactions, resulting in tax evasion worth Rs. 24 crore.
The Bombay High Court recently held that “leave encashment is akin to a salary, which is a property and depriving a person of his or her property without any statutory provision would violate Article 300 (no person to be deprived of property without authority of law) of the Constitution.”
The Bombay High Court has held that Tata Steel is entitled to treat the contribution of Rs. 212.52 crores to the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) as revenue expenditure.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prasanna Kumar Shetty allowed the writ petition and set aside the attachment order in case where recovery proceedings were initiated against the former director of the Company who was not the director of the Company during the concerned period.