Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 23 - December 29, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 650 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 654Nominal Index: Zahid Khamisa vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 650Imperial Consultants and Securities vs. Deputy CIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 651Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) vs. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 652Nav Chetna Charitable Trust vs, CIT (Exemption), 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 653Chandrabhan Atulkar v. MOIL Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 654Judgments/Final Orders: Bombay High Court Allows Mahim Dargah Mela To Continue, Quashes Police Notice To Stop Event Due To Christmas CelebrationsCase title: Zahid Khamisa vs. State of Maharashtra & AnrCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 650The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (December 24) quashed a notice issued by Mumbai Police to stop the annual Mahim Mela (fun fair)–one of the city's most vibrant events–citing the "overcrowding" on the streets, especially on December 24 and 25, when people will usher in Christmas celebrations.A vacation bench of Justices Shivkumar Dige and Advait Sethna said that the police, instead of stopping the event can instead provide more police force for keeping a check on overcrowding and traffic jams.ITO Acted On Complete Change Of Opinion On Same Material With Intent To Review Assessment Order Passed By Him: Bombay HC Quashes ReopeningCase Title: Imperial Consultants and Securities vs. Deputy CITCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 651While setting aside the reassessment proceedings, the Bombay High Court held that 'change of opinion' or 'review of already completed assessment', is not permitted to AO.While holding so, the Division Bench of Justice G.S Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna observed that there is no whisper of allegations against the assessee that income that has escaped assessment was attributable to the assessee for not disclosing fully & truly all material facts necessary for assessment.S.147 Of IT Act Doesn't Postulate Review Jurisdiction Such That Assessment Can Be Reviewed By AO Intending To Form Different Opinion: Bombay HCCase Title: Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) vs. Union of IndiaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 652The Bombay High Court ruled that the materials which were already available before AO and which ultimately were considered in passing assessment order u/s 143(3), cannot form basis of reopening, on ground that such materials were ignored in finalizing assessment.The Division Bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla observed that AO cannot assume jurisdiction under garb of re-assessment u/s 147, to reopen assessment merely on basis of change of opinion and/or review assessment order passed against assessee.Belated Filing Of Form 9A Is Not Attributable To Trust: Bombay HC Allows Exemption U/S 11 After Condoning Delay Under IT ActCase Title: Nav Chetna Charitable Trust vs, CIT (Exemption)Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 653The Bombay High Court held that bonafide delay in filing Form 9A on part of trust, has to be construed as procedural lapse and shall be condoned by exercising powers u/s 119(2) of Income tax Act.The Division Bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna observed that that the jurisdictional AO completely lost sight of the fact that at the time when assessee claimed deductions towards depreciation and capital expenditure u/s 11(1) by filing the revised computation, the time limit for submission of Form 9A had lapsed, due to change of procedure.MOIL Ltd.'s Pension Scheme Struck Down By Bombay HC As Discriminatory; Distinction Between Resignation And Superannuation Declared ArbitraryCase Title: Chandrabhan Atulkar v. MOIL Ltd.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 654A Division Bench of Justices Avinash G. Gharote and Abhay J. Mantri held that Clause 7(b) of the MOIL Group Superannuation Cash Accumulation Scheme is discriminatory and violative of Article 14. This clause restricted employees who resigned from receiving their pension. The court ruled that resignation alone cannot bar pensionary benefits when all other eligibility criteria are met.Other Orders/Observations: Bombay High Court Issues Notice To Consortium Of NLUs On Plea Challenging CLAT PG 2025 Answer KeyIn a petition challenging the CLAT PG 2025 answer key, the Bombay High Court today (24 December) issued notice to the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs). A vacation bench of Justice SG Dige and Justice Advait M Sethna stated that any selection made by the Consortium would be subject to the final outcome of the present petition.

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 23 - December 29, 2024

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags