Loading High Court cases…
4,699 orders from the Bombay High Court.
Most recent orders on record, from 2026.
The High Court held that the respondent-assessee is indeed a developer of infrastructure facilities and not merely a works contractor. The Court found that the assessee had undertaken comprehensive responsibilities, including preliminary and detailed site surveys, formulation of designs, acquisition of land, obtaining statutory permissions, undertaking the development, construction, and execution of projects, procurement of materials, installation of components, erection, and commissioning. Crucially, the assessee had invested its own funds and borrowed funds, undertaken all risks involved, deployed technical personnel and machinery, and bore both business and entrepreneurial/investment risks. The direct work orders issued by various government authorities to the assessee/consortium confirmed that the assessee had itself entered into agreements for developing the infrastructure facilities. Therefore, all conditions for claiming deduction under Section 80-IA(4) were met. The Court answered the substantial question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, dismissing the appeals. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.
The High Court held that the respondent-assessee is indeed a developer of infrastructure facilities and not merely a works contractor. The Court found that the assessee had undertaken comprehensive responsibilities, including preliminary and detailed site surveys, formulation of designs, acquisition of land, obtaining statutory permissions, undertaking the development, construction, and execution of projects, procurement of materials, installation of components, erection, and commissioning. Crucially, the assessee had invested its own funds and borrowed funds, undertaken all risks involved, deployed technical personnel and machinery, and bore both business and entrepreneurial/investment risks. The direct work orders issued by various government authorities to the assessee/consortium confirmed that the assessee had itself entered into agreements for developing the infrastructure facilities. Therefore, all conditions for claiming deduction under Section 80-IA(4) were met. The Court answered the substantial question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, dismissing the appeals. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.
The High Court held that the respondent-assessee is indeed a developer of infrastructure facilities and not merely a works contractor. The Court found that the assessee had undertaken comprehensive responsibilities, including preliminary and detailed site surveys, formulation of designs, acquisition of land, obtaining statutory permissions, undertaking the development, construction, and execution of projects, procurement of materials, installation of components, erection, and commissioning. Crucially, the assessee had invested its own funds and borrowed funds, undertaken all risks involved, deployed technical personnel and machinery, and bore both business and entrepreneurial/investment risks. The direct work orders issued by various government authorities to the assessee/consortium confirmed that the assessee had itself entered into agreements for developing the infrastructure facilities. Therefore, all conditions for claiming deduction under Section 80-IA(4) were met. The Court answered the substantial question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, dismissing the appeals. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.
The High Court held that the limitation period for preferring an appeal commences from the date on which a copy of the judgment and order passed by the ITAT is received by the aggrieved party. The Court reasoned that for an aggrieved party to deliberate and decide whether to appeal, they need a complete copy of the judgment to understand the findings and reasons. To hold otherwise would deprive the party of their right to appeal based on cogent grounds. The Court found that the applicant received the ITAT's order on 27th February 2025. Regarding the second issue, the Court adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach, considering the delay was not inordinate and did not indicate deliberate or mala fide conduct. The applicant provided a stage-wise explanation for the 88-day delay, which was found to be bona fide. The Court noted that no irreversible prejudice would be caused to the revenue by condoning the delay. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was allowed.
The High Court observed that the tax effect of Rs. 26,18,409/- was below the monetary limits prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17th September 2024. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed in view of the said circular. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to apply in the event the case fell within the exceptions of the circular. No decision was made on the substantive merits of the ITAT's order.
The High Court observed that the tax effect of Rs. 1,21,95,792/- was below the monetary limits prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17th September 2024. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed in view of the said circular. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to apply in the event the case falls within the exceptions of the circular. The Court also directed refund of court fees, if any, as per rules. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment was decided.
The High Court observed that the tax effect in the appeal filed by the Revenue was Rs. 92,32,315/-, which is below the monetary limits prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17th September 2024. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn or not pressed. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to apply in the event the case falls within the exceptions of the said circular. The Court also directed for the refund of court fees, if any, as per Rules.
The High Court observed that the tax effect in the appeal, amounting to Rs. 58,45,423/-, was below the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17th September 2024. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn or not pressed. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to apply in the event the case fell within the exceptions of the said circular. No decision was made on the merits of the substantive tax dispute.
The High Court observed that the tax effect of Rs. 34,40,153/- was below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17th September 2024. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn or not pressed. The Court granted liberty to the appellant (Revenue) to apply for revival of the appeal if the case falls within the exceptions mentioned in the said circular. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated. Firstly, the notice dated 24th March 2026 under Section 148A(1) was not accompanied by the necessary information, which was only provided on 27th May 2026, rendering the initial notice defective. Secondly, the Court found that Section 56(2)(x) of the Act could not be invoked in the facts of the case. The Revenue had failed to appreciate that the transaction was a proportionate rights allotment where the Petitioner's shareholding remained unchanged, and no disproportionate benefit was identified. The mere difference between the subscription price and the fair market value did not constitute receipt of property for inadequate consideration in this context. The Court also noted that the Revenue's reliance solely on a price difference arising from a proportionate rights allotment was insufficient grounds for invoking Section 56(2)(x). The Court concluded that the basis for reassessment was unsustainable and that the reassessment proceedings could not be sustained. The impugned notices and order were set aside. The Court did not examine other grounds urged by the Petitioner, leaving them open.
The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, allowed the appeal to be withdrawn/not pressed. This decision was made in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, which provides for the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below specified monetary limits. The Court granted the appellant liberty to move the Court again if the case is found to fall under the exceptions outlined in the circular. The operative direction is that the appeal is withdrawn/not pressed. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment was decided.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn by the Appellant. The reasoning provided is that the Appellant's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17th September 2024. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The operative direction was to allow the appeal to be withdrawn and disposed of accordingly, with a direction for refund of court fees as per rules.
The High Court recorded the statement made by the learned AGP as an undertaking to the Court. The Court directed the petitioner to produce his Aadhar Card, Pan-card, along with Form No. 16-A and relevant decisions of the High Court on the point before respondent no.3. Upon presentation of these documents, respondent no.3 was directed to take necessary steps to refund the deducted amount to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the documents. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. No specific finding on the entitlement to the refund itself was made, but rather a procedural mechanism for its release was established based on the revenue's submission.
The High Court recorded the statement made by the learned AGP as an undertaking to the Court. The Court directed the petitioner to produce his Aadhar Card, PAN card, along with Form No. 16-A and relevant decisions of the High Court on the point before respondent no.3. Upon presentation of these documents, respondent no.3 was directed to take necessary steps to refund the deducted amount to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the documents. The Court did not delve into the merits of the tax deduction or the petitioner's entitlement beyond the procedural requirement of submitting necessary documents. The ratio decidendi is that procedural compliance, as undertaken by the revenue, can lead to the resolution of refund claims.
The High Court held that the Draft Assessment Order dated 25th March 2024 was indeed passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 153(1) read with Section 153(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the period of limitation expired on December 31, 2023. Consequently, the Draft Assessment Order was without jurisdiction and illegal. The Court also addressed the Revenue's preliminary objection regarding the alternative remedy, stating that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, especially when the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. Relying on established principles and its own prior decision in Kedaara Capital Fund II LLP, the Court held that it would not relegate the assessee to the statutory appeal process to adjudicate a jurisdictional objection. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the Draft Assessment Order, the consequential Final Assessment Order, the Notice of Demand, and the Penalty Show Cause Notice. The Rule was made absolute.
The High Court allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. The Court noted that the learned Counsel for the Appellant sought to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17th September 2024. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. The Court also directed that the refund of court fees, if any, be allowed as per the rules. No other issues were decided on merits.
The High Court allowed the appeal to be withdrawn by the Appellant. The reasoning provided is solely based on the Appellant's request to withdraw the appeal in light of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17th September 2024. The Court noted that the matter was called out and the learned Counsel for the Appellant sought to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made. Refund of court fees, if any, was allowed as per rules. No issues were expressly left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.
In Income Tax Appeal No. 353 of 2015, the High Court noted that the disputed claim/tax effect of Rs. 61,29,134/- was below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17th September 2024. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as not pressed, with liberty granted to apply if the appeal fell under any exceptions to the Tax Effect Circular. In Income Tax Appeal No. 859 of 2015, the Revenue's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The High Court allowed the appeal to be withdrawn and disposed of it accordingly. Refund of court fees was permitted as per rules.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the appellant's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The operative direction was to allow the appeal to be withdrawn and dispose of it accordingly. Refund of court fees was also permitted as per rules. No issues were decided on merits.
The High Court allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the appellant's counsel's submission that the withdrawal was sought in light of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The operative direction was that the appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn. No issues on the merits of the assessment were decided, and no refund of court fees was mentioned as being disallowed.
The High Court disposed of Income Tax Appeal No. 353 of 2015 as not pressed, in view of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17th September 2024, noting that the disputed claim/tax effect of Rs. 61,29,134/- was below the monetary limits prescribed by the circular. Liberty was granted to apply in case the appeal fell under the exceptions of the Tax Effect Circular. For Income Tax Appeal No. 859 of 2015, the Court allowed the appeal to be withdrawn and disposed of it accordingly, also citing CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The reasoning for both decisions was based on the monetary limits set by the CBDT circular, which dictates the threshold for filing appeals by the Revenue. The principle is that appeals below a certain tax effect are generally not to be pursued unless specific exceptions apply. Refund of court fees was allowed as per rules for the withdrawn appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the appellant's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17th September 2024. The appeal was accordingly allowed to be withdrawn and stands disposed of as such. The Tribunal also directed that the refund of court fees, if any, be allowed as per the rules. No specific issue was decided on merits, as the appeal was withdrawn. Therefore, no ratio decidendi for future cases on the substantive issues of the appeal can be extracted. The operative direction is the withdrawal of the appeal and refund of court fees.
The High Court held that the Petitioner's grievance was justified and admitted by the Revenue. The Petitioner had specifically requested a personal hearing through Video Conferencing, but could not avail it due to technical glitches, which was no fault of their own. The Court noted that Section 144B(6)(vii) & (viii) of the IT Act incorporates principles of natural justice into the faceless assessment procedure, specifically contemplating a personal hearing via Video Conferencing when requested. The inability to avail this facility due to technical issues constituted a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the Draft Assessment Order dated September 26, 2023, and the Final Assessment Order dated October 30, 2023, were quashed and set aside. The assessment proceedings were remanded to Respondent No. 3 for fresh adjudication, with a direction to afford the Petitioner a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing, including personal hearing via Video Conferencing, and to consider all submissions and documents. The Court explicitly stated that no observations on merits were made, and all contentions on the merits of the assessment were kept open.
The Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, has not delivered a final decision on the merits of the case. Instead, the court has issued notice to the respondents and granted ad interim relief. The court has stayed the operation of the notice under Section 148 dated March 30, 2025, for AY 2015-16, pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition. This interim order indicates that the court found prima facie merit in the petitioner's challenge to the validity of the notice based on the ten-year limitation period. The court has not yet decided on the substantive issues raised by the petitioner regarding the applicability of Section 153C and the ten-year block period. The operative direction is the stay of the impugned notice.