Bombay High Court Judgments — 2025

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 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, 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 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)], 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 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. The revival could be done by filing a Praecipe. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging Hexaware, there would be no revival. The Court also clarified 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 it is bound to follow the decision 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 is squarely covered by it. Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all other 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. If the SLP is dismissed by the Supreme Court, 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 rule was made absolute and the writ petition was disposed of.

The Bombay High Court, following its own Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, held that the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Court found itself bound by the precedent set in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Consequently, the Court quashed the Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. 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, there will be no revival. The Court clarified that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned Notice and proceedings.

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, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], as the present case was fully 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. judgment. If the Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition challenging the Hexaware judgment, there would be no question of revival. The Court also clarified that if the Petition is revived, it would be decided on its own 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 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 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. 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 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 was bound to follow the Division Bench decision 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 Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. This revival could be done by filing a praecipe. If the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court also clarified that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other grounds raised by the petitioner. Rule was made absolute, and the writ petition was disposed of.

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, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. 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. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival can be sought by filing a Praecipe, and no separate interim application would be necessary. If the Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition challenging the Hexaware 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 Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.

The High Court held that it was bound to follow 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 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. If the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware judgment, there would be no question of revival. The Court clarified 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, 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 held that it was bound to follow 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 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. judgment. Revival could be sought by filing a praecipe, without needing a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court clarified that if the petition is revived, it would be decided on its own 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 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, it proceeded to 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. Revival can be done by filing a praecipe, without a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging Hexaware Technologies Ltd., there will be no question of revival. The Court clarified that if revived, the petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised. No other issues were expressly left undecided, but the Court noted that other issues were 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 required to be set aside. The Court found itself bound by the precedent set in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The reasoning was that the defect in issuing the notice by the wrong authority (Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO) was fatal. The Court set aside the impugned Notice and all consequential proceedings. However, to accommodate the Revenue's pending challenge before the Supreme Court, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment is set aside by the Supreme Court. If the SLP is dismissed, revival will not be possible. The Court clarified 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 judgment 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)]. 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 decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The revival can be sought by filing a Praecipe, without needing a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Hexaware judgment, there will be no question of revival. The court also clarified that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.

The Bombay High Court, while acknowledging that the issue was squarely covered by its own decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), decided to follow this precedent. The Court held that the impugned 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 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 dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware 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 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 of the Bombay High Court 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. 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 upon revival, the petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised.

The Tribunal 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 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. 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 the petition is revived, it would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the assessee. 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. 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 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 of Bombay 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). Consequently, the Court was bound to follow this precedent. The Court quashed the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings or orders. 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware, 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 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 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 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 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)], 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 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 SLP is dismissed, 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 it was bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench 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 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 Hexaware Technologies Ltd., there would be no question of revival. The Court clarified that if revived, the petition 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, stated 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. 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. 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 Special Leave Petition challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no possibility of revival. Upon revival, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other grounds raised by the Petitioner.

The High Court held that it was bound to follow the decision 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 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. (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by a Praecipe and that if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, 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 a Division Bench of its own court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), 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 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 revival can be done by filing a Praecipe, without a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging Hexaware, there will be no 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 Writ Petition was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) (Bombay). 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 sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The Revenue can revive the petition by filing a Praecipe. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there will be no 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 Bombay High Court held that it is 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)]. 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. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought 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 issues raised.

The High Court held that it is bound to follow the decision of its own Division Bench in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). 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 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 by the assessee.

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)], which squarely covered the issue. 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 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 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 it was bound by the precedent set in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court quashed the Section 148 notice and all consequential proceedings. However, liberty was granted 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 if the SLP is dismissed by the Supreme Court, there would be no question of revival. Upon revival, 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) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], 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 it was bound to follow the precedent set by the Hexaware judgment. The Court set aside the Section 148 notice and all consequential proceedings. However, liberty was granted 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 a Praecipe, and if the SLP against Hexaware 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 it was bound to follow the decision of a 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 or orders. 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, without a separate interim application. 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 have to be decided on its own 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), as the present matter 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. judgment. If the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Hexaware 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. The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.

The Tribunal 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 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 Revenue was granted liberty 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 Special Leave Petition challenging the Hexaware 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. The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.

The High Court held that it was bound to follow the decision 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. However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware judgment. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a praecipe, and if the SLP against Hexaware is dismissed, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if revived, the petition would need to be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.

The Tribunal, bound by 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), 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 regarding the pending challenge before the Supreme Court but stated that in the absence of a stay, they were obligated to follow the existing judgment. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Notice and all consequential proceedings. Liberty was granted 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 SLP was dismissed, no revival would be possible. 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 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 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 Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. If the Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Hexaware judgment, the petition will not be revived. The Court 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 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)]. 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 were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by a Praecipe, and if the SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court, there would be no question of revival. 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 the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, as the present case is fully 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. (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be done by moving a Praecipe, and no separate interim application would be necessary. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, 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 was bound to follow the decision 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 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, without a separate interim application. 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 need to 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) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], held that it was bound to follow the said judgment. 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 moving a Praecipe, and if the SLP is dismissed by the Supreme Court, there would be no question of revival. Upon revival, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.

The Tribunal decided that since the issue raised by the Petitioner was squarely covered by 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), they were 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 Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition in the event the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The Revenue can revive the petition by moving a Praecipe, without needing a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. The Tribunal 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 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), 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 Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court also clarified that upon revival, 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 Bombay High Court held that it was bound to follow the decision 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 or orders. However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) were to be 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 Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Hexaware decision were dismissed by the Supreme Court, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that upon revival, the petition would need to be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.