S. 147 Reopening Of Assessment In Audit Objection | Read Latest Bombay High Court Judgement

The question whether an assessment can be reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act pursuant to an audit objection was considered in the Bombay High Court’s latest judgement. In Commissioner of Income Tax – 17 Versus Rajan N. Aswani the Bombay High Court noted that in Hindustan Lever (Supra), the Assessee had challenged a reopening notice which was issued beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant Assessment Year. The reasons in support of notice therein did not indicate any failure on the part of the Assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts Read More …

S. 143(1)(a) Adjustment For Section 36(1)(viii) bad debts disallowance

The latest Bombay High Court judgement considers whether an adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to disallowance of the claim for bad debts under Section 36(1)(viii) in respect of a sum of Rs.1,69,37,818/- representing “provision for doubtful overdue installments under hire purchase finance agreements” Read More …

Law On Oppression Or Mismanagement U/s 397, 398 Companies Act

The latest Bombay High Court judgement in Abdul Wahid Abdul Gaffor Khatri vs. Safe Heights Developers Pvt. Ltd COMPANY APPEAL NO.22 OF 2013 explains the law on sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act which deal with opression of the minority and mismanagement.

The Bombay High Court has held in the judgement that it is well settled, as held, inter alia, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1V.S. Krishnan & Ors .v. Westfort Hi-Tech Hospital Limited & Ors. and followed in 2Purnima Manthena & Anr. v. Renuka Datla & Ors that an Appeal under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, would lie only on a question of law.

It has been pointed out in the judgement of the Bombay High Court that Section 10-F expressly states that the Appeal will lie only on a question of law arising out of the order. It is further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the CLB is the final authority on facts, unless, such findings are perverse, based on no evidence or are otherwise arbitrary.

The Bombay High Court judgement further emphasizes that it is further well settled that an order passed by the CLB under Sections 397 and 398 is a discretionary order as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. S. Krishnan (supra) and in 3Sangramsinh P. Gaikwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaikwad. Being a discretionary relief, the Appellate Court, i.e. the High Court ought not to interfere with the judg- ment or replace the same with its own exercise of discretion, particu- larly given the restrictive scope of Section 10-F. Read More …

Bombay High Court Judgement On Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

No evidence is adduced whatsoever, that the Local (Health) Authority was satisfied that the first report received is erroneous. In this view of the matter, and for reasons other than the reasons recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence under Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii), 7(v) read with Rule 44-AAA punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act Read More …

Bombay High Court Judgement On Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to 13 APL793.17.odt support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicite answers to find out the truthfullness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused Read More …

Bombay High Court Judgement Reg Reforms In Police Dept

This Court has taken suo moto cognizance of a news published in Daily Lokmat on 23rd November, 2008, in respect of deficiencies in relation to crime investigation at the hands of the police department and inadequacy of infrastructure as well as paucity of police personnel, which has adversely affected the quality of investigation and having an impact on law and order situation Read More …

Bombay High Court Judgement Reg section 34 (5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

The expression “arbitral proceedings” described in section 26 of the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 refers to two different periods i.e. (i) before 23rd October, 2015 and (ii) after 23rd October, 2015. The expression “in relation to the arbitral proceedings” provided in section 26 of the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 does not refer to the arbitral proceedings in Court. The expression “in relation to the arbitral proceedings” prescribed in section 26 has to be read with section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Read More …