https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769029 The Bombay HC declined to exercise territorial jurisdiction under Article 226, finding that only a minuscule part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, which was insufficient to warrant entertaining the petition. The court distinguished prior cases where significant portions of causes of action arose within Bombay's jurisdiction. Applying forum conveniens principles and noting that the assessing officer was located in Kolkata, the HC held that interests of justice would be better served by relegating the petitioner to pursue remedies in Kolkata. The petition was dismissed without prejudice to filing at the appropriate forum. en-us Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Apr 2025 10:40:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769029 The Bombay HC declined to exercise territorial jurisdiction under Article 226, finding that only a minuscule part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, which was insufficient to warrant entertaining the petition. The court distinguished prior cases where significant portions of causes of action arose within Bombay's jurisdiction. Applying forum conveniens principles and noting that the assessing officer was located in Kolkata, the HC held that interests of justice would be better served by relegating the petitioner to pursue remedies in Kolkata. The petition was dismissed without prejudice to filing at the appropriate forum. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769029