https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751482 Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging an ITSC order that allowed capitalization of expenditure with depreciation and granted immunity from penalties/prosecution in a case involving bogus purchases. The court held that HC can interfere with ITSC orders under Article 226 only when contrary to Act provisions and prejudicial to assessee, following Jyotendrasinhji precedent. ITSC has discretionary power under Section 245D(3) and need not provide reasons. The court emphasized judicial review concerns decision-making process, not the decision itself. Since seized diary showed cash utilization for capital expenditure and Revenue accepted bogus purchase facts from same documents, ITSC's capitalization approval was justified. No procedural violations or natural justice breaches were found. en-us Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Aug 2024 13:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751482 Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging an ITSC order that allowed capitalization of expenditure with depreciation and granted immunity from penalties/prosecution in a case involving bogus purchases. The court held that HC can interfere with ITSC orders under Article 226 only when contrary to Act provisions and prejudicial to assessee, following Jyotendrasinhji precedent. ITSC has discretionary power under Section 245D(3) and need not provide reasons. The court emphasized judicial review concerns decision-making process, not the decision itself. Since seized diary showed cash utilization for capital expenditure and Revenue accepted bogus purchase facts from same documents, ITSC's capitalization approval was justified. No procedural violations or natural justice breaches were found. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751482