High Court of Bombay
3,981 judgments
Clear Media (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment without new tangible material, when the issue was considered in the original order, is invalid as it amounts to impermissible change of opinion.
Survival Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that reopening of income tax assessment beyond four years is impermissible without tangible new material evidencing failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, and set aside the reopening notice and order in absence of such material.
Tahnee Heights CHS Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14, holding that reopening beyond four years requires specific failure to disclose material facts and cannot be based on mere change of opinion.
Konark Life Spaces v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment beyond four years without new material and based on mere change of opinion is invalid, quashing the reassessment notice issued to the petitioner.
Lehman Brothers Investments Pte. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court held that reopening of income tax assessment under Section 148 requires new tangible material and cannot be based on mere change of opinion or retrospective amendments, and shares of private companies do not qualify as securities under Section 112(1)(c)(iii) for A.Y. 2015-16.
Jetair Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for lack of new tangible material and held that mere difference in commission rates with related parties does not justify reopening of assessment.
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-3(4), Mumbai
The Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment after four years was invalid as the settlement amount was not a penalty and the petitioner had disclosed all material facts, thus quashing the reopening notice and related order.
Somnath Tukaram Kuber v. Meghraj Medeppa Kadadi
The High Court dismissed the writ petition upholding eviction on grounds of rent default, unauthorized structural changes, change of user, and nuisance, affirming that a respondent can challenge adverse findings without cross-objections when the decree is in their favour.
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that 'Castor Oil First Special Grade' is identical to 'Castor Oil Medicinal' for Cash Compensatory Support Scheme benefits despite a change in testing method, allowing the petitioners' refund claim for the disputed period.
Ramchandra Sitaram Supanekar and Ors. v. Uttamrao Yashwant Khot and Ors.
The Bombay High Court set aside the MRT's order upholding tenancy rights, holding that the claimant failed to prove tenancy over disputed land due to lack of evidence of rent payment, mutation, and proper cultivation.
Pilaji Sursinh Jadhavrao v. Regional Passport Office Pune
The Bombay High Court held that passport reissuance cannot be granted during pending criminal proceedings without court permission, upholding statutory provisions and dismissing the writ petition.
Jai Jalaram Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Nanji Khimji & Co. & Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition directing grant of unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the MOFA Act, holding that the objector was estopped from denying the promoter's status and that title disputes can be agitated separately in Civil Court.
Dr. Feroze Homi Duggan v. Bilkish Yunus Namakwala
The Court revoked the fraudulent Letters of Administration granted to the Respondent based on a forged Will, affirming that no second grant can be made without revoking the earlier one and ordering inquiry into the fraud.
Dr. Feroze Homi Duggan v. Bilkish Yunus Namakwala
The Bombay High Court revoked fraudulent Letters of Administration obtained by the Respondent over the estate of Lady Jena Duggan, holding the grant a nullity due to fraud and affirming the Petitioners' locus to seek revocation.
Vilas Damu Shinde v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
The Bombay High Court held that acceptance of Section 4(1) notice by one co-owner on behalf of others validates land acquisition, dismissing the petitioners' challenge but directing payment of interest on compensation.
Ali Mohd. Subrati Khan v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld convictions for rape based on the credible sole testimony of the prosecutrix supported by medical and chemical evidence, affirming that absence of a test identification parade does not vitiate in-court identification.
Usha Eswar v. Rajeshwari Menon & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that an advance ruling by the Authority for Advance Ruling is binding on the applicant and revenue unless law or facts change, and quashed reassessment notices issued relying on a subsequent ruling in another case without such change.
Azizur Rehman Gulam Rasool v. M/s. Radio Restaurant
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the arbitral award on grounds of procedural and substantive infirmities, upholding the award and directing possession to be handed over to the partnership firm.
Modi Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. DC (IT) Spl. Rg. 19, Bombay
The Bombay High Court held that the appellant's business had commenced during AY 1992-93, allowing set-off of interest expenditure against interest income from lending borrowed funds, reversing the ITAT's order.
Bank of Baroda v. Devshi Valji Kundadia
The Bombay High Court upheld the industrial tribunal’s setting aside of a bank employee’s dismissal for misappropriation due to perverse enquiry findings and unreliable evidence, directing reinstatement with 60% backwages.