Bombay High Court Weekly Roundup: 19 August – 25 August, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 432 To 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 442Nominal IndexArihant Developers Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 432Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat Thou Their Sanghatak vs. State Of Maharashtra Through Their Chief Secretary, And Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 433Samp Furniture Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 434Crimeophobia – A Criminology Firm Through its founder – Criminologist Snehil Dhall vs. Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development and Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 435Mituram Udayram Dhurve vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 201 of 2021), 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 436 Phoenix Industries Limited Versus UOI, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 437Mrs vs State of Goa, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 438Joseph Paul De Souza vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 439Vaishali Gawande vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 440Nanda Bai Sarjerav Misal versus State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 441Shital Dinkar Bhagat vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 442Judgments/Final Orders:Income Declaration Scheme 2016, Assessee Deposited Amount, Dept. Claim Erroneous; Bombay High CourtCase Title: Arihant Developers Versus Principal Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 432The Bombay High Court has directed the department to issue certificates as the assessee deposited all amounts under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS). The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that the petitioner or assessee in fact complied with all the requirements under the IDS, and the appropriate amount of tax deposited is sufficient to accept the case of the petitioner. Thus, the assessment order cannot be held to be legal. It would be required to be quashed and set aside on the department's own, showing that the petitioner had deposited all the amounts under the IDS. The petitioner, accordingly, had become entitled to the benefit under a scheme.Bombay High Court Disposes PIL Against Use Of Laser Beams And Loud Sound Systems During FestivalsCase title: Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat Thou Their Sanghatak vs. State Of Maharashtra Through Their Chief Secretary, And Ors The Bombay High Court has disposed a PIL against the usage of laser beams and loud sound systems during religious processions and other ceremonies. In its order, the Court noted that the petitioner can submit a representation to the appropriate authority/State government to take measures for regulating the use of light laser beams. . It also noted that the petitioner can inform the police about any relevant provisions in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and file a complaint.Bombay High Court Imposes Fine On JAO & Chief Commissioner For Disregarding Binding JudgementCase Title: Samp Furniture Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax OfficerCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 434The Bombay High Court has imposed a fine of Rs. 25000/- on the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for disregarding the binding judgment passed in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & 4 Ors., in which it was held that under the faceless assessment scheme introduced by Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices.The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that the case reflects a very poor state of affairs on the part of the JAOs, which is also not being corrected by the higher officials, namely, the Commissioner and Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. Even the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has acted with total non-application of mind.Bombay HC Imposes 10K Cost On PIL For Setting-Up 'Anti-Organized Crime Unit' At Aarey Milk Colony, Constituting 'Cave Temple Commission'Case title: Crimeophobia – A Criminology Firm Through its founder – Criminologist Snehil Dhall vs. Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development and Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 435The Bombay High has dismissed with costs a 'frivolous' PIL which sought constitution of an 'Anti-Organized Crime Unit' at the Aarey Milk Colony, constitution of a 'Bombay Cave Temple Commission' and a 'Transnational Sanatan Commission' along with other diverse prayers.“Having devoted considerable time in hearing such pleas, we find it extremely difficult to comprehend and understand the very purpose of instituting these proceedings as a PIL petition” the Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar remarked.Repeatedly Following A Minor Girl, Trying To Express Love Despite Her Disinclination Is Sexual Harassment Under POCSO Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Mituram Udayram Dhurve vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 201 of 2021)Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 436In a significant ruling, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held that if a boy repeatedly follows a minor girl to talk to her, to express his love for her and then...

Bombay High Court Weekly Roundup: 19 August – 25 August, 2024

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags