Bombay High Court Weekly Roundup: March 14 To March 20, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan vs National e-Assessment Centre Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. Rachna Sanjay Kuwar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs ITO Vishnu Rajaram Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra,Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Anr. P vs A & Ors Sankalp Resorts Limited & ors vs State of Maharashtra and ors World Sport Group (India) Private Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in India Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & OrsROUND-UP 1. Reply Of The Taxpayer Not Considered: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Faceless Assessment Case Title: Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan Versus National e-Assessment Centre Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 81Case No.: WP 1927/2021 The Bombay High Court bench quashed an income tax faceless assessment as the taxpayer's reply was not considered by the department/respondent. The IT department has launched the Faceless Facility for income tax appeals. Under the facility, all the cases will be completed in a faceless way in a faceless environment, except for appeals that are related to evasion of tax, serious fraud, black money, international tax, and special research. 2. Claiming that a property is untainted would amount to an offence under section 3 of the PMLA 2002 – Bombay HC in Nawab Malik Case Title: Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 82 Case No: WP 648/ 2022 In its order refusing interim release of Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik, the Bombay High Court observed that prima facie claiming that a property is untainted would amount to an offence under section 3 of the PMLA 2002. The court denied Malik interim release in his habeas corpus plea challenging PMLA proceedings. The crux of Nawab Malik's counsel's arguments was on the retrospective applicability of PMLA since ED had used the amended provision of section 3 of PMLA from 2013 and an explanation is inserted in the year 2019, for the transaction of the year 2003 and 2005. However, the bench observed that a perusal of the unamended provisions of Section 3 mention "process or activity connected with proceeds of crime" as one of the ingredients. It's a wider term and its constitutional validity is not challenged. "What we prima facie feel that projection/claiming a property as untainted property is the objectionable act forming part of an offence under Section 3 of the Act of 2002." 3. NEET-UG | Students Domiciled In Maharashtra But Passing 10th/ 12th Standard From Outside Not Eligible To Avail State Quota: Bombay High Court Case Title: Rachna Sanjay Kuwar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 83 The Bombay HC held that a medical aspirant domiciled in Maharashtra, but having passed 10th or 12th standard from outside the state shall not be eligible to avail the benefit under State quota for the purpose of NEET-UF examination. "The Rule applicable since 2018 and followed consistently is that (i) the student should pass 10th and 12th standard from an institution situated within the State of Maharashtra and (ii) must be domicile of State of Maharashtra. Exception is if he has cleared 10th standard prior to the year 2017 from an institution outside the State of Maharashtra, he would still be eligible, provided he has passed 12th standard examination from an institution situated within the State of Maharashtra and he is also domicile of the Maharashtra," the Court said. 4. Reassessment Notice Issued Within 5 Hours Of Receiving Information, Bombay High Court Says Nothing Wrong, If There Is Application Of Mind Case Title: Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs ITO Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 84 Case No.: WP 3597/ 2019 The Bombay High Court bench upheld the validity of the reassessment notice issued within 5 hours of receiving information against Maharashtra Minister, Chhagan Chandrakant. The court observed that the power vested in the commissioner under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act to grant or not to grant approval to the Assessing Officer to re-open an assessment is coupled with duty, and the commissioner is duty bound to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Such power cannot be exercised casually, in a routine and perfunctory manner. 5. Caste Scrutiny Committee Cannot Review Its Own Decision Except In Cases Of Fraud Or Misrepresentation – Bombay High Court Case Title: Vishnu Rajaram Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra,Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 85 Holding that a Caste Scrutiny Committee can review...

Bombay High Court Weekly Roundup: March 14 To March 20, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags