Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 16 To January 22, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 28 - 42]Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 28Clear Media (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 29Thomas Cook (India) Limited v. Red Apple Chandrarat Travel 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 30Sandesh Jedhe v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 31Sunita Kumari and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 32TLG India Pvt Ltd v. Rebel Foods Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 33Footcandles Film Pvt Ltd. & Anr. v. Income Tax Officer – TDS & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 34Prakash Jankilal Jaju v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 35Prashant Trivedi v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 36Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 37Nijal Navin Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 38Venugopal Nandllal Dhoot v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 39Sunita w/o Kalyan Kute v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 40Ghanshyam Upadhyay (Intervener) in Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 41Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. RBEP Entertainment Private Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 42Reports/JudgmentsAssessee Not Entitled for Deduction without A Certificate Declaring The Warehouse as Part Of The Port: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maharashtra State Warehousing CorporationCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 28The Bombay High Court held that the assessee cannot claim the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act in the absence of a certificate declaring the warehouse to be part of the port.The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata observed that the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) has declined to issue a certificate that the warehousing of the assessee is part of the port.The ITAT held that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down for the deduction claimed under section 80IA(4).Section 80IA allows a deduction of 100% of profits obtained from businesses for a period of 10 consecutive years out of 15 years from the date of its commencement.The court, while dismissing the appeal, held that a similar claim was also denied to the assessee for the year 2009–10 in the absence of the certificate.Nothing New Happened Between The Date Of Reassessment Order And The Date Of Forming The Opinion By AO: Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment OrderCase Title: Clear Media (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 29The Bombay High Court quashed the Reassessment Order and held that between the date of the order of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of the formation of an opinion by the Assessing Officer, nothing new has happened. There was no new information received, nor was there any mention of new material on file.The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes observed that the Assessing Officer has simply accorded a fresh consideration and come to the conclusion that the assessee ought to have claimed the benefit of deduction under section 35ABB, which would have resulted in reducing the allowance under section 32. In the absence of any tangible material, there was nothing but a case of change of opinion, which thus does not satisfy the jurisdictional foundation under Section 147.‘Limitation’ Doesn’t Involve Any “Basic Notions Of Morality Or Justice”, For Setting Aside Award: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Thomas Cook (India) Limited v. Red Apple Chandrarat TravelCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 30 The Bombay High Court ruled that the ground of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, can never be a ground which would involve any “basic notions of morality or justice” for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).The Court reckoned that the arbitral tribunal had concluded that the claims raised by the claimant were not barred by limitation, by recording a finding of fact that there was a running account between the parties. The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni ruled that the said finding of fact cannot be re-examined by appreciating evidence under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The Court further observed that it was not a case where an ex-facie and a brazenly time barred claim or a deadwood was awarded by the arbitral tribunal, of a nature which would shock the conscience of the Court.No Public Interest: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Culpable Homicide Charge Against Anahita Pandole In Cyrus Mistry Accident CaseCase Title: Sandesh Jedhe v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 31Bombay High Court dismissed with cost, a PIL seeking culpable homicide charges against Dr. Anahita Pandole for allegedly causing the death of businessman Cyrus Mistry and his friend Jehangir in ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 16 To January 22, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags