Loading High Court cases…
538 orders · Page 4 of 11
The High Court, by allowing the praecipe, decided to grant the Petitioner's request for correction. The Court directed that the specified sentence be added to the operative part of the judgment dated September 11, 2025, on page 24, after the words '2014-2015'. This addition explicitly states that the Assessment Order under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1967, dated March 16, 2022, and the consequential notices are quashed and set aside. The reasoning for this decision is implicit in the Court's order to carry out the correction as requested, indicating that the Court found the amendment to be a necessary rectification. The operative direction is to upload the corrected judgment.
The High Court held that the impugned penalty order dated 24th March 2025 was to be quashed and set aside. The Court found that the Petitioner had entered into an APA with the CBDT, filed a modified return under Section 92CD(1) offering tax on the APA adjustment, and paid the tax. Crucially, no order was passed under Section 92CD(3) on this modified return. The Court also noted that the Petitioner was not granted a virtual hearing as mandated by the Faceless Penalty (Amendment) Scheme, 2022. The Court reasoned that these facts were not considered by the Assessing Officer before passing the penalty order. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the 1st Respondent (Assessment Unit) to grant a virtual hearing to the Petitioner and pass a fresh speaking reasoned order, taking into consideration all facts, including that penalty proceedings for AY 2016-17 on the basis of the same APA were dropped. The Court directed the exercise to be completed within 12 weeks.
The High Court held that the Petitioner is not an 'eligible assessee' under Section 144C(15)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that Section 144C(1) mandates the Assessing Officer to forward a draft assessment order only if he proposes to make any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the assessee. The definition of 'eligible assessee' in Section 144C(15)(b)(i) specifically requires that the variation arises as a consequence of the TPO's order. Since it was an admitted position that the TPO made no variation, the Petitioner could not be considered an 'eligible assessee'. The Court found the Revenue's argument that 'variation' includes 'no variation' to be contrary to the statutory provisions, as no prejudice can arise to the assessee in the absence of a variation, negating the purpose of Section 144C. The Court relied on the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj Extrusion Ltd. and the Delhi High Court in Honda Cars India Ltd. to support its reasoning. Consequently, the Draft Assessment Order, Final Assessment Order, Demand Notice, and Show Cause Notices for penalty were quashed and set aside. The Rule was made absolute.
The High Court condoned the delay of 373 days in filing the Tax Appeal. The Court found the reasons provided by the Revenue in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the application to be justifiable, considering them as administrative reasons that occasioned the delay. While acknowledging the Respondent's opposition and allegations of inaccuracies, the Court held that the stated reasons for the delay were sufficient to warrant condonation. The Court reasoned that it is open for the assessee to contest the appeal on its merits. Therefore, in the interest of the Revenue, which involves larger public interest, the Court deemed it appropriate to condone the delay. The Miscellaneous Civil Application was made absolute, and the Tax Appeal was directed to be listed for hearing on 10.09.2025. No issue was left undecided; the core issue of condonation of delay was decided.
The High Court found considerable force in the argument advanced by the Revenue. It was not disputed that the impugned Assessment Order and Demand Notice were dated April 20, 2021, and the Penalty Order was dated March 21, 2022. It was also undisputed that the Petitioner had challenged both the Assessment Order and the Penalty Order before the CIT(A). The Court held that this was not a fit case to exercise its extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court reiterated that the remedy under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary, and the conduct of the party invoking it cannot be ignored. When a party has multiple remedies, they must select one and cannot indulge in multiplicity of actions. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the Writ Petition and dismissed it, directing the Petitioner to prosecute the appeals filed before the CIT(A).
The High Court held that the conclusions and findings of the ITAT were erroneous and required to be set aside. The Court found that the interest earned by the assessee was directly related to its business. The Court reasoned that the funds parked in fixed deposits were for specific business purposes, such as fulfilling contractual obligations under the License Agreement with JNPT for replacing cranes and complying with a court order concerning a tariff dispute. These were not merely surplus funds parked incidentally but were essential for the continued operation and compliance of the eligible business. Therefore, the interest income derived from these deposits was considered to be derived from the eligible business. The Court also distinguished the reliance placed by the revenue on certain judgments, finding them not applicable to the present facts. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, partly set aside the ITAT's order, and directed the revenue to grant deduction under Section 80IA on interest from fixed deposits and interest on TDS refund for AY 2012-13. The questions of law were answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the ITAT's conclusions and findings were erroneous and required to be set aside. The Court found that the interest earned by the assessee on fixed deposits was directly related to its business and therefore deductible under Section 80IA. The Court reasoned that the funds were parked in fixed deposits to meet contractual obligations and comply with court orders, directly linking the interest income to the eligible business. The Court also noted that the judgments relied upon by the revenue were not applicable to the facts of the case. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, partly set aside the ITAT's order, and directed the revenue to grant deduction under Section 80IA on interest from fixed deposits and interest on TDS refund for AY 2012-13. The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous.
The High Court held that the ITAT's order was indefensible and liable to be set aside. The Court found inconsistency in the ITAT's treatment of similar income and expenses across different assessment years. Specifically, for Assessment Year 1993-94, both the CIT(A) and ITAT allowed the deduction of interest paid against interest earned from lending to sister concerns, a decision not challenged by the Revenue. The Court noted that the same loan transactions and lending activities continued in subsequent years (1994-95 and 1995-96) where such adjustments were allowed. The Court applied the principle from M/s. Radhasoami Satsang (supra) that while res judicata doesn't strictly apply, it's inappropriate to allow a position to change in a subsequent year when a fundamental aspect has been sustained by not challenging prior orders. The Court concluded that the ITAT's inconsistent findings based on the same material for different assessment years defeated the ends of justice. Therefore, the ITAT's order for AY 1992-93 was brought in line with its orders for subsequent years, which had attained finality. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was assessable to income of Rs. 22,00,000/- as 'income from house property' and answered the question of law against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The Court found no valid ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the AO, CIT(A), and ITAT. The Court reasoned that the security deposit of Rs. 1.54 crores, with the right to utilize it without interest for 10 years, represented the real return to the assessee, not the stated license fee. The Court noted that the assessee had contemporaneously availed an overdraft facility, indicating a need for funds. Therefore, neither the low license fee nor the municipal rateable value could be considered as the sum under Section 23(1)(a). The Court also rejected the assessee's reliance on municipal rateable value, stating that if it does not depict the correct annual value, the AO is entitled to make his own assessment, as done in this case. The Court found the AO's assessment to be conservative. The appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that, by consent of all parties, most of the Income Tax matters listed before it would be restored to the file. This restoration is in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh and Ors. v/s. Tej Partap Singh. However, specific petitions were excluded from this general restoration order. Writ Petition No. 3306 of 2022 was to be de-tagged and listed separately for admission hearing. Several other petitions were confirmed as already disposed of and thus removed from the group requiring restoration. For Writ Petition No. 2895 of 2022, which was already restored, the petitioner was granted two weeks to carry out amendments. The court directed that amendments be completed within two weeks, followed by correction of pagination within one week thereafter. If no amendment was desired, the restored petition would be registered in its existing form. Leave was granted to the respondent department to file an affidavit in reply. Interim orders, if any, passed by any court or bench were to continue to apply. The matters were listed for commencement of submissions on August 19, 2026.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in upholding the Assessing Officer's determination of the gross annual letting value (GALV) at Rs. 22,00,000/-. The Court reasoned that the assessee's license fee of Rs. 9,825/- per month was artificially low, especially considering the substantial interest-free security deposit of Rs. 1.54 crores received from Citi Bank, which was utilized by the assessee. The Court found that this security deposit represented the real return to the assessee, not the stated license fee. The AO's approach of considering comparable instances (rent of other premises in the building) and the interest paid on the assessee's overdraft facility was deemed a reasonable method to arrive at the potential rent. The Court rejected the assessee's reliance on municipal rateable value, noting that the certificates produced were not from the Municipal Corporation and that the ITAT had rightly considered them 'ridiculously low'. The Court affirmed that if the municipal rateable value does not reflect the true annual value, the AO is empowered to make an independent assessment, citing *CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba* and *CIT vs. Tip Top Typography*. The Court concluded that the GALV determined by the AO was conservative and not perverse. The question of law was answered against the assessee.
The Court permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition. The reasoning was based on the Petitioner's submission that they had filed a fresh application for Financial Year 2025-26, the rejection of which was being challenged in a separate Writ Petition (No. 11074 of 2025). The Court explicitly stated that the withdrawal of the present petition would have no bearing on the merits or maintainability of the other Writ Petition (No. 11074 of 2025). No specific finding was given on the infructuousness of the original petition, as it was withdrawn before a decision on merits. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the vintage car was not a personal effect. The Court reasoned that for an asset to be considered a personal effect and thus excluded from capital assets under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, it must be held for personal use. The assessee failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the vintage car was put to personal use. The Court noted several indicators against personal use, including the assessee using a company car for commute, the car not being used even occasionally, not being parked at the assessee's residence, and the inability to prove maintenance expenses. The Court found the CIT(A)'s considerations of wealth tax returns and non-claiming of depreciation to be irrelevant, whereas the ITAT correctly focused on the aspect of personal use. The judgments relied upon by the assessee were distinguished as not applicable because they involved situations where personal use was either proven or the nature of the asset inherently implied personal use, unlike the present case where such use was not demonstrated. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the question of whether the failure to furnish the return within the time prescribed under Section 139(1) was willful requires an examination of facts leading to the delay, which is a matter for trial and not for determination under Article 226. Regarding mens rea, the Court interpreted Section 278E(1) to mean that the onus to prove the absence of mens rea lies on the accused, not the Revenue. The submission that the Revenue had not discharged the onus of mens rea was therefore rejected in these summary proceedings. The Court disagreed with the petitioner's interpretation of the proviso to Section 276CC, stating that it only provides a threshold for initiating proceedings and does not mandate an assessment for the section to be attracted. The Court noted that the return was admittedly not filed under Section 139(1), thus the offense was said to have been committed. The Court found that the relevance of subsequent Section 153A proceedings to an offense under Section 276CC would also require factual investigation, which is outside the scope of Article 226. The Court found the cited precedents of Arvind Nandagopal and Ganga Devi Somani to be prima facie not applicable and not having considered the Supreme Court's decision in Sasi Enterprises, which supported the Revenue's case. The Court concluded that the petition was not entertained, and the petitioner was relegated to face trial, with all contentions left open for the trial court. The petition was dismissed.
The High Court held that the question of whether the failure to furnish the return within the time prescribed under Section 139(1) was willful requires an examination of facts leading to the delay, which is a matter for trial and not for determination under Article 226. Regarding mens rea, the Court interpreted Section 278E(1) to mean that the onus to prove the absence of mens rea lies on the accused, not the Revenue. The submission that the Revenue had not discharged the onus of mens rea was therefore rejected in these summary proceedings. The Court disagreed with the petitioner's interpretation of the proviso to Section 276CC, stating that it only provides a threshold for initiating proceedings and does not mandate an assessment for the section to be attracted. The Court noted that the return was admittedly not filed under Section 139(1), thus the offense was said to have been committed. The Court found that the relevance of subsequent Section 153A proceedings to an offense under Section 276CC would also require factual investigation, which is outside the scope of Article 226. The Court found the cited precedents of Arvind Nandagopal and Ganga Devi Somani to be prima facie not applicable and not having considered the Supreme Court's decision in Sasi Enterprises, which supported the Revenue's case. The Court concluded that the petition was not entertained, and the petitioner was relegated to face trial, with all contentions left open for the trial court. The petition was dismissed.
The High Court held that the process was wrongly issued against the petitioner (Accused No. 3). The court found that the petitioner's assertion that he was not connected with Accused No. 1 company after 2007, and specifically during the period relevant to Assessment Year 2014-15 (when the return was due in October/November 2013), was not rebutted by the respondents. The court noted that the complaint's averment regarding the petitioner's responsibility for the company's day-to-day affairs was a bald statement. Relying on the principle established in Homi Phiroz Ranina and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., where a similar criminal complaint was quashed on analogous facts, the court concluded that no case was made out against the petitioner under Sections 276CC read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the process and the criminal complaint, insofar as the petitioner was concerned, were quashed and set aside. The order was explicitly stated to apply only to the petitioner and not to other accused not before the court.
The High Court held that it is bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], as the present issue is squarely covered by it. Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The revival could be done by filing a Praecipe, without needing a separate interim application. The Court clarified that if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision, there would be no question of revival. It was also noted that if the Petition is revived, it would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the Petitioner.
The High Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). Following this precedent, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings and orders. The Court reasoned that as they are bound to follow the decision of a Division Bench of their own Court, they could not keep the matter pending. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be done by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The High Court held that the prosecution against the petitioner could not be sustained. The court noted that the petitioner was an independent professional Chartered Accountant rendering accounting services and was not a director. Crucially, the complaint lacked any averments to demonstrate how she was in charge of the company's affairs, especially concerning tax deducted at source compliances. Given her status as an independent professional and the absence of specific allegations linking her to the company's management or tax defaults, the court found no basis for the prosecution. Consequently, the process dated November 1, 2019, and the complaint (C.C. No. SW/3800558 of 2019) insofar as it concerned Accused No.2 (the petitioner) were quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.
The High Court held that all ingredients of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were satisfied in the present case. The Court noted the Assessee's admission that the advance was utilized for payment of Income-tax, which is a personal liability, and not for execution of any job work for GPIL. The Court distinguished the Assessee's cited judgments, particularly CIT v. Amrik Singh, by highlighting that in those cases, there was a finding of tangible business expediency or utilization for business expansion, which was absent here. The Court found that mere maintenance of a running account or demonstration of continuous business transactions was not sufficient to infer that the advance was actually utilized for executing a business transaction. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities that the advance was not utilized for job work for GPIL could not be interfered with in appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, the question of law was answered against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
The High Court held that the complaints filed against the petitioner were not maintainable. The court found that the averments in the complaints, stating that the petitioner was a director responsible for the company's affairs and conduct, were bald and did not satisfy the requirements of Sections 276B read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court reasoned that there must be specific averments detailing how the petitioner was in charge and engaged in the day-to-day affairs of the company. The petitioner's status as a practicing Solicitor, who by virtue of the Advocates Act cannot be engaged in the day-to-day affairs of a company, and his position as an Independent Non-Executive Director, were crucial factors. The court followed the principles laid down in S.M.S. Pharmaceutical Limited Vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. and Homi Phiroz Ranina & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., which held that mere reproduction of statutory wording is insufficient. Consequently, the criminal cases against the petitioner were quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that a case for attracting the provisions of Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not made out. The Court noted that the petitioner had disclosed his salary income not only in column 23 of the return form but also that the TDS deducted by his employer was reflected on the respondents' portal. The Court found that the omission from the final computation was an inadvertent error, as accepted by the petitioner and acknowledged by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not failed to disclose his income. Consequently, the criminal complaint filed before the learned Magistrate was quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of in these terms, with no costs.
The Bombay High Court held that the issue raised by the Petitioner was squarely covered by its own Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). The Court stated that it was bound to follow this precedent. Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. If the Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition challenging the Hexaware judgment, the Petition would not be revived. The Court also clarified that if revived, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised. The operative direction was to set aside the notice and proceedings, with liberty to revive.
The High Court held that it was bound to follow the decision of its own Division Bench in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), as the present case was fully covered by that judgment. The Court found the petitioner's argument regarding the invalidity of the Section 148 notice due to its issuance by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer to be valid. Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom were set aside. The Court, however, granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, there would be no question of revival. Upon revival, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The Bombay High Court held that the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom, were to be set aside. The Court acknowledged that the issue raised by the Petitioner was squarely covered by its own Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). The Court stated that it was bound to follow this precedent. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that upon revival, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had erred in deducting the additional sugarcane price of Rs. 78,86,857/- from the Assessee's profits for AY 1990-91 when computing the benefit under Section 32AB of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the Assessee was justified in claiming the deduction based on profits reflected in the Profit & Loss Account prepared in accordance with Parts II and III of the VI Schedule to the Companies Act. The reasoning was that Section 32AB(3) explicitly allows for profits determined as per the Companies Act to be the basis for calculating the deduction. The Tribunal noted that this method was consistently followed by the Assessee, with the additional sugarcane price paid after the financial year being considered in the subsequent year's profits. This practice, though appearing to offer a benefit in one year, was neutralized in the following year, preventing any revenue loss. The High Court affirmed the consistent view of various High Courts, relying on the Apex Court's judgment in Apollo Tyres Ltd., that profits for Section 32AB are to be calculated as per the Companies Act. The orders of the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and ITAT to the extent of deducting the additional sugarcane price were set aside. The appeal was allowed.
The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the petitioner has a clear and efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for an appeal against an assessment order. The Court noted that the petitioner's grievance pertains to the assessment proceedings themselves and the alleged lack of opportunity to be heard during those proceedings, which can be effectively addressed in the appellate stage. The Court cited various precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, emphasizing the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when statutory remedies are available. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, without delving into the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding jurisdiction or natural justice. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.
The High Court held that the Writ Petition No. 10676 of 2025 was rendered infructuous due to subsequent developments. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition. The reasoning was based solely on the statement made by the petitioner's advocate. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. No issues were decided on merits, and no principles were established for future citation.
The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by its own Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Consequently, the Court was bound to follow that precedent. The impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders were set aside. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The High Court held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in rejecting the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay. Firstly, the Court opined that an assessee being guided by professionals does not preclude the possibility of errors or delays. Secondly, the Court found the ground that the Petitioner did not submit documentary evidence to substantiate its claim for deduction under Section 80IBA to be unsustainable at the stage of condonation of delay. The Court reasoned that proving the claim for deduction is not required at this stage; it would be examined during the assessment proceedings if the return is accepted. The Court emphasized that refusal to condone the delay would cause genuine hardship to the Petitioner, preventing it from claiming a substantial deduction and potentially defeating the cause of justice. The Court relied on the decision in K. S. Bilawala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. The Court set aside the impugned order and condoned the delay, directing the respondents to open the portal for filing the return within four weeks.
The Tribunal, following the binding precedent of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), held that the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be set aside. The reasoning was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was contrary to the mandate of the law requiring issuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer. The Tribunal acknowledged the revenue's submission that the Hexaware judgment was under challenge before the Supreme Court but noted the absence of any stay. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. Liberty was granted to the revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The Tribunal clarified that if the SLP is dismissed, there would be no question of revival. Any revival would require the matter to be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.
The High Court held that it was bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (supra), as the present case was squarely covered by it. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings or orders. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if the petition were revived, it would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.
The High Court held that it was bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench of the same Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], which squarely covered the issue raised by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings or orders. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if the Petition were revived, it would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.
The High Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). As the Court is bound to follow its own precedents, it set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. The revival could be done by filing a Praecipe. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against the Hexaware judgment, there would be no revival. The Court also clarified that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.
The Tribunal held that the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom are set aside. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the issue raised by the petitioner was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of the same court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Despite the Revenue's submission that the Hexaware judgment was under challenge before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal was bound to follow the existing precedent as there was no stay granted. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. If the SLP is dismissed, there would be no question of revival. The Court clarified that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The High Court held that it is bound to follow the decision of its own Division Bench in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. The revival can be done by filing a praecipe, without a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, there would be no question of revival. The Court clarified that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the primary issue was decided based on precedent.
The High Court held that the issue raised by the Petitioner is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Being bound by this precedent, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings or orders. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Hon'ble Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The revival can be done by filing a praecipe, without needing a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there will be no question of revival. The Court clarified that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the Petitioner.
The High Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Following this precedent, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a praecipe, and no separate interim application would be necessary. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if the petition is revived, it would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.
The High Court of Bombay held that the issue raised by the Petitioner was squarely covered by the Division Bench's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). The Court stated that it was bound to follow this precedent. Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be done by filing a Praecipe, and if the SLP is dismissed, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other raised issues.
The High Court held that the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be set aside. The Court acknowledged that the issue raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. As the High Court is bound to follow its own precedents, it proceeded to quash the impugned notice and all consequential proceedings. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. The revival can be sought by filing a Praecipe. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware Technologies Ltd., there will be no revival. The Court also clarified that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The High Court held that it was bound to follow the decision of its own Division Bench in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), as the present case was squarely covered by it. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings or orders. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. This revival could be initiated by filing a Praecipe. The Court clarified that if the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware judgment, there would be no question of revival. It was also noted that if the petition were revived, it would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.
The High Court held that it is bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, as the present issue is squarely covered by it. Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings/orders emanating therefrom were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be done by moving a Praecipe and that if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, there would be no question of revival. Upon revival, the petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other raised issues. Rule was made absolute, and the writ petition was disposed of.
The High Court held that the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders are set aside. The Court was bound to follow the decision of a Division Bench of the same Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which squarely covered the issue raised by the Petitioner regarding the issuance of the notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware judgment, there would be no question of revival. The Court clarified that upon revival, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The Bombay High Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner was squarely covered by its own Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. As the Court is bound to follow its precedents, it set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings or orders emanating therefrom. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be done by filing a praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The High Court held that it was bound to follow the decision of its own Division Bench in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], as the present case was squarely covered by it. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings or orders. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware judgment, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The High Court held that it was bound to follow the decision of its own Division Bench in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), as the present case was squarely covered by it. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings or orders. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe, without needing a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no revival. The Court also clarified that if the Petition were revived, it would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.
The High Court held that since the issue raised by the Petitioner was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), the Court was bound to follow it. Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be done by filing a Praecipe, and no separate interim application would be necessary. If the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if the petition were revived, it would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the Petitioner.
The High Court held that the issue raised by the Petitioner was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The Court stated that it was bound to follow this precedent. Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe and that if the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if the Petition were revived, it would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the Petitioner.
The Bombay High Court, following its own Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), held that the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was required to be set aside. The Court found itself bound to follow the precedent set in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The impugned Notice and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware judgment, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if revived, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The High Court held that it was bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised. The Rule was made absolute.