High Court of Bombay

3,981 judgments

Year:

Vedanta Limited v. Union of India

12 Oct 2010 · K.R. Shriram; Firdosh

The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment based on mere change of opinion is invalid and upheld the allowability of interest on borrowed capital used for business under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act reopening of assessment change of opinion interest deduction

Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

12 Oct 2010 · K. R. Shriram; Kamal Khata
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated on a mere change of opinion when the issue was already considered during original assessment, quashing the impugned notices and orders.

tax petition_allowed Significant reassessment change of opinion Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148

Geopreneur Realty Private Limited v. Union of India

12 Oct 2010 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment under Section 148 based solely on a change of opinion is impermissible and quashed the reopening notice issued to the petitioner.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act reopening of assessment change of opinion failure to disclose material facts

Mira Bhavin Mehta v. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (3) (1)

12 Oct 2010 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court held that reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated solely on a change of opinion where the issue was already considered during original assessment, and quashed the reopening notices issued on that basis.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 148 Reassessment Change of opinion

Godrej Projects Development Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Officer & Ors.

12 Oct 2010 · K. R. Shriram; Neela Gokhale
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment based on share premium receipt is invalid if it is a mere change of opinion without independent reason to believe and that share premium is a capital receipt not taxable for AY 2009-10.

tax petition_allowed Significant reopening of assessment Section 148 Income Tax Act share premium capital receipt

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Paramjitsingh Ghai & Ors.

12 Oct 2010 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court upheld mesne profits payable from lease termination till delivery of possession, affirming valuation and rejecting BPCL’s challenge to quantum and payment period extension.

civil petition_dismissed Significant mesne profits Order 20 Rule 12 CPC Order XLI Rule 33 CPC lease termination

Krishna Bhagwan Kotak v. The State of Maharashtra

18 Sep 2010 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court discharged private accused in a CBI cheating case due to absence of prima facie material and confirmation by SCI that no wrongful loss was caused as disputed invoices were neither authorized nor paid.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant discharge application criminal conspiracy cheating prosecution sanction

Ashraf Chitalwala v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

08 Sep 2010 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. N. K. Gokhale
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16 due to non-communication of reasons recorded and absence of failure to disclose material facts, holding that reopening on mere change of opinion is impermissible.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Reassessment

Sunil v. Star India Pvt. Ltd.

07 Sep 2010 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that no copyright subsists in a mere film title and registrations with film producers’ associations do not confer enforceable rights against non-members, dismissing the plaintiff’s injunction application against the use of the title 'LOOTERE' for a web series.

intellectual_property appeal_dismissed Significant copyright in film title temporary injunction film producers association registration copyright infringement

Mapra Laboratories Private Limited v. The Union of India & Ors.

17 Aug 2010 · M. S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2008-2009, holding that no failure to disclose material facts occurred and the reassessment amounted to impermissible change of opinion.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act reopening of assessment failure to disclose material facts change of opinion

Kiran Harsukhlal Hemani v. Union of India

03 Aug 2010 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the CBDT's corrigendum notification restricting the benefit of Section 80IB(10) proviso to housing projects approved between 2004 and 2008, holding it prospective and intra vires.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Section 80IB(10) Income Tax Act, 1961 CBDT notification proviso

Kiran Harsukhlal Hemani v. Union of India

03 Aug 2010 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of a CBDT corrigendum notification restricting tax deduction benefits under Section 80IB(10) to projects approved between 2004 and 2008, holding the proviso prospective and the notification intra vires.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Section 80IB(10) Income Tax Act, 1961 CBDT notification corrigendum

Union of India v. Balakrishnan Thiruvengadam Mudaliar

27 Jul 2010 · Nitin Jamdar, ACJ; Sandeep V. Marne, J.

The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal's order granting backwages to a government servant wrongfully compulsorily retired and reinstated with a lesser penalty, dismissing the Union of India's challenge.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant backwages compulsory retirement departmental enquiry Fundamental Rules 54

Reminiscent India Television Ltd v. Status Video

27 Jul 2010 · M.S. Sonak; Advait M. Sethna

The court held that a debtor's prior unconditional agreement to pay a creditor precludes belated challenges to the creditor's locus standi in a company petition, dismissing the appellant's appeals and upholding the winding-up order.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant company petition locus standi sole proprietorship agreement to pay

Arnav Corporation Ltd v. Sharad Construction

21 Jul 2010 · M.S. Sonak; Advait M. Sethna

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the order directing the appellant company to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs in court for dishonour of cheques, upholding the learned Company Judge’s exercise of discretion.

civil appeal_dismissed company petition dishonoured cheque Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act condition precedent

Oasis Realty v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax

09 Jul 2010 · K.R. Shriram; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

The Bombay High Court upheld the prohibition on claiming set-off of input tax under the Composition Scheme notified under Section 42(3A) of the MVAT Act, dismissing the appellant's claim that the restriction applies only to purchases of goods transferred to buyers.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act Composition Scheme Section 42(3A) set-off of input tax

Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation v. Ashish Laxman Chavan

13 May 2010 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the Industrial Court's award directing Pune Municipal Corporation to pay incentive 'Mushahira' to Octroi Department employees, affirming their vested right despite conflicting views on whether the department qualifies as an 'industry'.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Mushahira Octroi Department Municipal Corporation Unfair Labour Practices

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

05 May 2010 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. N. K. Gokhale
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that an Indian payer who bore withholding tax under a foreign technical collaboration agreement is entitled to refund when the income is held not taxable in India, directing the Income Tax Department to refund the amounts with interest.

tax petition_allowed Significant tax deducted at source withholding tax refund non-resident income

Madhura Milind Gadgil v. Milind Neelkant Gadgil

13 Apr 2010 · Rajesh S. Patil
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act is maintainable even after divorce if domestic violence occurred, setting aside the Sessions Court's order that denied maintenance post-divorce.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Domestic Violence Act maintenance divorce decree aggrieved person

M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra

17 Mar 2010 · G. S. Kulkarni; Aarti Sathe
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court declined to answer sales tax references where the party at whose instance the references were made expressed disinterest, holding that the Court is not bound to decide such references without a hearing.

tax other Significant Sales Tax Reference Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 hire purchase premium service tax