These judgements are uploaded by our esteemed readers. If you have a judgement on an important topic that you would like to share with others, please use this form to upload it
Vilas Prabhakar Lad v. UIDAI & Ors (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Goods and Service-Tax Act, 2017 S. 132 : Punishment for certain offences-Fraud-Fraudulent misuse of Aadhaar and Permanent Account No (PAN)-Identity theft- Strictures-Opened a bank account and obtained GST registration-Opened a bank account- Inaction by statutory authorities and law enforcement agencies-Directions for cancellation and redressal-Compensation denied-Liberty to file criminal complaint- Citizens of the Country who toils… Read More ...
Mayur L. Desai v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA, Act) S. 43 : Real Estate Appellate Tribunal-Powers of Tribunal-Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority-Right to legal representation-A Hybrid system of hearing-Execution of orders-Delay in enforcement-Virtual-only hearings-Hybrid hearing not offered-Absence of mechanism for urgent listing and execution-Access to justice is an important of any courts / Tribunals exists,… Read More ...
HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD VERSUS ADIT (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: Permanent Establishment: One of the sine qua non for a fixed place PE is that the place through which the business is carried on must be 'at the disposal' of the enterprise. The degree of control and supervision exercised, and the presence of ownership, management, or operational authority have to be seen. On facts, the… Read More ...
Dadha Pharma LLP Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court: S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Central Circle-Notice issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO ) rather than the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO)- Notice and consequential order under section 148A(d) is quashed and set aside - Liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek revival if the Supreme Court later reverses the… Read More ...
Saravana Prasad Versus Endemol India Private Limited (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Companies Act, 2013. S. 2(62) : One person company–The separate legal personality and limited liability shield of an One Person Company (OPC) under Indian corporate law-The separate legal personality and limited liability shield of an OPC under Indian corporate law- Set aside the direction of the Arbitration Tribunal against Mr. Savan Prasad. [S. 3(1), Arbitration… Read More ...
Subhash Chander Oberoi v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed Dividend - Advance received from closely held company by its shareholder - Holding more than 10% -Commercial transaction - Not assessable as deemed dividend. Assessee was holding 35% shares in the company, which had two subsidiary companies. A foreign entity wanted to purchase stake in the company but was not interested… Read More ...
PCIT v. Pacific Organics Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice must specify the charge- Notice must be precise and there should be no room for ambiguity- Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2024] 158 taxmann.com 341 / 461 ITR 483 (Bom.)(HC), distinguished- Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 260A] The ITAT held that the penalty show cause notice was ambiguous, as… Read More ...
Balaram Chainrai vs International Taxation, Ward (ITAT Mumbai) [ITA No. 1074/Mum/2025]
Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT: Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT held that addition of alleged penny stock shall not be made in case of a regular investor on the basis of information from investigation wing. Facts: Assessee’s case has been reopened on the basis of information received from investigation wing that allegedly the assessee has done trading in penny stocks namely M/s.… Read More ...
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS SHREE NIWAS RAMGOPAL (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: Section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932: In the case of a firm with more than two partners, if one of the partners dies or retires, there is change in the constitution of the firm but there is no dissolution (i) It is settled in law by virtue of Section 42 of the Partnership Act,… Read More ...
ACIT v. Dhiraj Parbat Gothi (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information from Investigation Wing-Addition restricted to 4% justified-Additional ground of Revenue to disallowance at 100% of alleged bogus purchases is rejected-No justification for 100% disallowance in absence of suppression of sales-Books of account not rejected-PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd [2025] 172 taxmann.com 283 / 474 ITR 175 (Bom)(HC) is… Read More ...