Loading High Court cases…
538 orders · Page 5 of 11
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 or orders. 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 done by filing a praecipe. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware, there will be no 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 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 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 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 Bombay High Court, acknowledging 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) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], was bound to follow that precedent. 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 revival could be initiated by a Praecipe, without a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Hexaware judgment, there would be no revival. The Court also clarified that upon revival, the Petition 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. 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 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, considering that the issue was squarely covered by its own Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, held that it was bound to follow that precedent. 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 revival could be done by filing a Praecipe. The Court clarified that if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware judgment, there would be no revival. Upon revival, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised. The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.
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. (supra) 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 own merits, considering other issues raised.
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) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders 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 Court clarified that revival could be done by filing a Praecipe, without a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against 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 by the petitioner. The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.
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) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], as the present case was 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 in the event 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 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 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 found itself bound to apply the same. 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 challenging Hexaware Technologies Ltd. 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 issues raised.
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 Bombay 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, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], which squarely covers 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 decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The revival can be done by filing a Praecipe. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, there will be no question of revival. The Court also clarified that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other grounds raised by the petitioner.
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 (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 Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. The revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe. If the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against Hexaware Technologies Ltd., 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. Rule was made absolute.
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.
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, which squarely covers the issue of the notice being issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer. 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 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 raised issues.
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 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. Consequently, the Court was bound to follow this precedent. Accordingly, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders 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 Supreme Court. 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. Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.
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 High Court held that it is bound to follow the decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, as the present case is squarely covered by it. Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all proceedings/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 moving a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, there would be no question of revival. If revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised. The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.
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 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) [(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 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. decision. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware judgment, the petition would not be revived. The Court also clarified that upon revival, the petition 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 its own Division Bench in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), which squarely covers the issue raised by the petitioner. Therefore, 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. (supra) is set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival can 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 own merits, considering other issues raised.
The Bombay High Court, acknowledging 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) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], held that it was bound to follow that precedent. 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, 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 Court made the Rule absolute and disposed of the Writ Petition.
The Bombay High Court held that the issue raised by the Petitioner is 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)]. The Court stated that it is bound to follow its own precedent. 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. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival can be sought by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, there would be no question of revival. 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 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 if the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. If the petition were revived, it would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner. The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.
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). 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 and 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, without needing a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware judgment, 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 impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be set aside. The Court stated that it was bound to follow the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Notice and all consequential proceedings. However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. If the SLP is dismissed by the Supreme Court, there would be no question of revival. The Court also clarified that if revived, the petition would be decided on its 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 impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be set aside. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submission that the Hexaware judgment was under challenge before the Supreme Court but emphasized that in the absence of any stay, it was bound to follow the precedent set by its own Division Bench. Consequently, the Court quashed the Section 148 Notice and all consequential proceedings. However, 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 if the SLP were dismissed by the Supreme Court, 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 is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Consequently, the Court was bound to follow this precedent. The impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders were set aside. However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the 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. If revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other grounds raised.
The High Court held that it is bound to follow the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, as the present case 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 were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Supreme Court sets aside the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The revival can be sought by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, there will be no question of revival. The Court clarified that if the Petition is revived, it will be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the Petitioner. Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.
The Bombay 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 (supra), as the present case is fully 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. 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 own merits, considering other issues raised.
The Bombay High Court, acknowledging 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), held that it was bound to follow that precedent. 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 revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe, without needing a separate interim application. The Court clarified that if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware judgment, there would be no question of revival. It was also noted that if the Petition is 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, Circle 15(1)(2). Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all 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. (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 Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.
The High Court held that since the issue raised by the Petitioner was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), 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 in the event 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 challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. Upon revival, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
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. Consequently, the Court was bound to follow this precedent. Accordingly, 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. (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 challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. 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 same court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (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 and orders emanating therefrom. 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 on this issue. 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 the petition is revived, it would be decided on its own 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, 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 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 if the Petition is revived, it would be decided on its 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, 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 proceedings or orders emanating therefrom. 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. If the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, no revival would be possible. The Court also clarified that upon revival, the Petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other grounds 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) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. As the Court is bound to follow its own precedents, 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. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, the petition will not be revived. The Court clarified that if revived, 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 the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of 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 proceedings/orders emanating therefrom were set aside. 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 also clarified that if revived, the petition would be decided on its own 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 issue raised by the petitioner 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 revival could be sought by moving a Praecipe, without filing a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware judgment, there would be no question of revival. The Court also clarified 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 impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be set aside. The Court acknowledged that the Revenue's argument regarding the pending challenge before the Supreme Court did not negate the binding nature of the existing High Court judgment, especially in the absence of a stay. Therefore, the Court set aside the notice and all consequential proceedings. However, 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 also noted that if the SLP is dismissed by the Supreme Court, revival would not be possible. Upon revival, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
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 Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging Hexaware Technologies Ltd., there would be no question of revival. The Court clarified that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised. Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.
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, 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 done by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging Hexaware, 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 by the petitioner.
The High Court, acknowledging 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)*, held that it was bound to follow that precedent. 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 that 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 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 same Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), as the issue raised by the petitioner 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 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 also clarified that if revived, the petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised. 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 emanating therefrom, are set aside. The Court acknowledged 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) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. As the High Court is bound to follow its own precedents, it applied the ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware judgment, there will be no question of revival. The Court also clarified that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.