Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 08 To April 14, 2024

Nominal Index [Citation 188 - 199] Kalpita Arun Lanjekar v. Income Tax Officer 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 188 PCIT v. M/s. Tata Capital Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 189 Sarang Wadhawan v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 190 Nitin Rajendra Gupta v. Deputy Collector, Mumbai and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 191 Vodafone India Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 192 ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 193 XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 194 ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 195 Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 196 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Mavji Jethalal Rathod 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 197 Arun P. Gidh v. Chandraprakash Singh and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 198Anand Narayan Sakpal v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 199Reports/JudgmentsBombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Order Against Housewife When Property Was Purchased By Her HusbandCase Title: Kalpita Arun Lanjekar v. Income Tax OfficerCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 188The Bombay High Court quashed a reassessment order against a housewife when the alleged investment was made by her husband.The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed, “We also have to notice that, surprisingly, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has also accorded sanction for the issuance of this order instead of directing the AO to drop the proceedings against the petitioner.” The petitioner/assessee, a housewife who had no income and therefore was not filing any income tax return, received a notice from the Income Tax Officer under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the notice, it was stated that the officer has information that suggests that income chargeable to tax for Assessment Year 2016–2017 has escaped assessment.AO To Record Dissatisfaction With Correctness Of Claim Of Assessee In Respect Of Expenditure: Bombay High CourtCase Title: PCIT v. M/s. Tata Capital Ltd.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 189The Bombay High Court held that the Assessing Officer should record his dissatisfaction with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure, and to arrive at such dissatisfaction, he should give cogent reasons.The Bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that though the AO has stated that the assessee's explanation is not acceptable, he has not given reasons why it is not acceptable to him. Section 14A(2) and Rule 8D provide that if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim in respect of expenditure made by the assessee in relation to income that does not form part of the total income under the Act, he shall determine the amount of expenditure in relation to such income in accordance with the provisions prescribed.Pending Money Laundering Cases: Bombay High Court Says Collective Responsibility Of Probe Agencies, Defence Counsel To Make System WorkCase Title: Sarang Wadhawan v. Directorate of EnforcementCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 190The Bombay High Court directed the Registrar General of the High Court to assess and solve the problem of total backlog of cases, staffing levels, and the allocation of judges for both scheduled offenses and those under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) at the Mumbai City Civil and Sessions Court.Justice SM Modak added that Registrar General may also seek necessary directions from the Chief Justice in order to mitigate problems faced by the prosecuting agency as well as by under trial prisoners. "It may happen that due to intervention of learned Registrar General, the City Civil Court administration may be boosted to deal with huge pendency for scheduled and PMLA offence", the court remarked. The court also highlighted the shared responsibilities of investigating agencies, courts, and defence counsels in ensuring efficient case management and emphasized the need for collective efforts to expedite trials.“there is also onerous responsibility on the prosecuting Agency by remaining vigilant. If their case is not progressed (due to pendency), they are not remediless. They can request the head of that establishment (i.e. Principal Judge) to assign the case to another Court. Ultimately, running of a system is collective responsibility. The defense Counsels have also a role to play. On one hand, they have got every right to protect the interest of their clients and at the same time, they have to come forward for early disposal of the case. Because, they are also part and parcel of the system. And the system must work. Defence Counsels are also part of the same Society for betterment of which system is created. Unfortunately, nothing has happened of the sort mentioned above”The court made these observations while granting bail to HDIL Promoters Rakesh and Sarang Wadhawan in a money laundering case arising out of the Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Limited (PMC Bank) loan fraud case.Senior...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 08 To April 14, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags