Loading High Court cases…
532 orders · Page 7 of 11
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 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 Tribunal, bound 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), held that the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was required to be set aside. The reasoning was that the law mandates issuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer, and issuance by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer constitutes a fatal defect. The Tribunal explicitly stated they were bound to follow the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned Notice and all consequential proceedings. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The Tribunal noted that if the SLP is dismissed by the Supreme Court, there would be no question of revival. The Court also clarified that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
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.
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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], the Court was bound to follow it. 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. 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 the Petition were 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 of the same court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The Court stated that it is 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 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, 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 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 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 on this specific issue. The Court clarified that revival could 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 Technologies Ltd. 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 raised issues.
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. decision. 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 (SLP) against the Hexaware judgment, there would be no question of revival. It was also made clear 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 is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). 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 emanating therefrom. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Hon'ble Supreme Court sets aside the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. on this specific issue. The revival can be done by moving a Praecipe, without a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware judgment, 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 grounds raised by the petitioner. The issue of other grounds raised by the petitioner challenging the Section 148 notice was expressly left undecided at this stage.
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 (supra), as the present case is 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 sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The Revenue can do so by filing a Praecipe. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, there will 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 Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.
The High Court held that the matter 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)]. 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 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, without a separate interim application. 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 Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.
The High Court held that it is bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench of its own 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 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 sought by filing a praecipe, without needing a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition (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 merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner. The rule was made absolute, and the writ petition was disposed of.
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 decision in *Hexaware Technologies Ltd.* is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Revenue can revive the petition by filing a Praecipe, without needing a separate interim application. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the *Hexaware Technologies Ltd.* 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 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 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 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 the Petition were 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 was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which the Court was bound to follow. 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. was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by moving a Praecipe, and if the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision was dismissed, there would be no question of revival. 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 Tribunal held that it is bound to follow the decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) 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 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. decision. The revival can be done by filing a Praecipe, without 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 if the petition is revived, it will be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.
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). Consequently, the Court was bound to follow its 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 Supreme Court were to set aside the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. on this specific issue. 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 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. 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. was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Revenue could do so by filing a Praecipe, without needing a separate interim application. If the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court, 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 the expression 'a residential house' in the unamended Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, includes more than one residential house. The Court found that the provision is beneficial in nature, aimed at encouraging house purchase, and should be read literally and reasonably, with any ambiguity resolved in favour of the assessee. The Court agreed with the judgments of the Karnataka High Court in Arun K. Thiagarajan and the Madras High Court in Tilokchand & Sons. The Court distinguished the judgments relied upon by the revenue, noting that Pawan Arya Vs. CIT was decided without the benefit of subsequent High Court decisions and amendments, and Raman Kumar Suri and Devdas Naik were based on specific facts where multiple units were combined into one. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, quashing the orders of the Assessing Officer and ITAT to the extent they denied the benefit of exemption under Section 54(1) against the entire capital gains of Rs. 1,08,30,625/- on account of the utilization of sale proceeds towards the purchase of seven row houses in Pune.
The Court held that the petitioners, through their learned advocates, unequivocally stated that they do not intend to question the legality of the Finance Act, 2026, which introduced Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners' counsel further clarified that the writ petitions contain other grounds that can be argued before the appropriate bench. Consequently, the Court directed that all these matters be de-tagged from the group of Income Tax cases listed before the present bench and be placed before the roster assignment court, specifically the Division Bench headed by Hon’ble Shri Justice B. P. Colabawalla. No decision was made on the merits of any other grounds raised in the petitions, as the immediate concern was the administrative listing of the cases.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.03.2021, for AY 2015-16, is liable to be quashed and set aside. The reasoning is that the period of four years from the end of AY 2015-16 fell between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021. Consequently, the case is governed by the old regime of Section 151, which came into effect before the new regime on 01.04.2021. Under Section 151(2) of the old regime, the satisfaction for issuing a reassessment notice must be of the Joint Commissioner. However, the notice in question records the satisfaction of the PCIT, Panaji, who is not the competent authority as per the statute. The Tribunal relied on the principle that when a statute mandates the satisfaction of a particular functionary, it must be that authority, citing Ghanshyam K. Khabrani and CIT v. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. As a consequence, the assessment order passed under Section 147 dated 21.03.2022 and the order under Section 264 dated 14.11.2023, which are consequential to the invalid notice, also cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed and set aside. The Petition was made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
The Tribunal, acknowledging that the issue was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], was bound to follow 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 Supreme Court. It was clarified that revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe, and upon revival, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other raised issues. The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.
The High Court held that the impugned process order was identical in nature to the one considered in the case of M/s. Zico Environmental Solutions. In that prior case, the Court had found that the learned Magistrate had not assigned any reasons for passing the order, deeming it cryptic and unreasoned. The Court emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised by demonstrating application of mind through reasons. Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned process order. It directed the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to pass a speaking order, briefly stating the facts and explaining how the provisions of Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and specifically which clause thereof, were attracted. The petitions were allowed with this direction.
The High Court held that the process order issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was identical in nature to the order considered in the case of M/s. Zico Environmental Solutions (supra). In that case, the Court had concluded that the Magistrate had not assigned any reasons for passing the order, deeming it cryptic and unreasoned. The High Court reiterated that judicial discretion must be exercised with reasons, demonstrating application of mind. Consequently, the impugned process order dated August 28, 2017, was quashed and set aside. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was directed to pass a speaking order, briefly stating the facts and explaining how the provisions of Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, including the specific clause attracted, were applicable. The petitions were allowed with this direction.
The High Court held that the process order dated August 28, 2017, was no different from the one considered in the case of M/s. Zico Environmental Solutions (supra). Following the precedent set in that case, the Court found that the learned Magistrate had not assigned any reasons for passing the order, indicating a lack of due application of mind. The Court stated that the learned Magistrate needs to demonstrate such application of mind by giving reasons as to why the process is issued against the accused. Consequently, the impugned process order was quashed and set aside. The Court directed the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to pass a speaking order, providing a brief outline of the facts and explaining how the provisions of Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are attracted, including which specific clause of the section is applicable. This direction was extended to all other identical petitions.
The High Court held that the process order in the present case was identical in nature to the process order considered in the case of M/s. Zico Environmental Solutions (supra). In that prior case, the Court had found that the learned Magistrate had not assigned any reasons for passing the order, deeming it cryptic and unreasoned, and not an appropriate exercise of judicial discretion. Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned process order dated August 28, 2017. It directed the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to pass a speaking order afresh, providing a brief outline of the facts and explaining how the provisions of Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are attracted, including specifying which clause of the said section is applicable. The petitions were allowed with this direction.
The High Court held that the impugned process order was identical in nature to the one considered in the case of M/s. Zico Environmental Solutions. In that prior case, the Court had found that the learned Magistrate had not assigned any reasons for passing the order, deeming it cryptic and unreasoned. The Court emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised by demonstrating application of mind through reasons. Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned process order. It directed the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to pass a speaking order, briefly stating the facts and explaining how the provisions of Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and specifically which clause thereof, were attracted. The petitions were allowed with this direction.
The High Court allowed the criminal applications and quashed the prosecution proceedings against the applicant. The Court found that the complaint lacked specific averments that the applicant was in charge of or responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. The cheque that formed the subject matter of the complaint was not signed by the applicant, which was admitted in the complaint itself. The Court noted that the applicant's assertion of being a part-time professional director with no role in daily activities had not been rebutted by the respondents. The Court drew parity with the discharge of another director (Accused No. 10) by the Metropolitan Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Court, finding no material difference between that director and the applicant. Furthermore, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sunita Palita & Ors. vs. Panchami Stone Quarry, which held that a mere statement that all directors are in charge and responsible for the conduct of business is insufficient without specific averments substantiating involvement in day-to-day affairs. The Court disagreed with the revenue's contention that Section 278B(2) was applicable, as there were no pleadings to attract its ingredients. The operative direction was to quash the criminal complaints against the applicant.
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). Consequently, the Court was bound to follow its 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 Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. The Court clarified that revival could be done by filing a Praecipe, and upon revival, 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 it is bound to follow the decision 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 other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. 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 can be sought by filing a Praecipe, and upon revival, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other raised issues. 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, 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 noted the absence of any stay. Consequently, 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 clarified that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other grounds raised by the petitioner. The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, specifically Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, allowed the Petitioner's request. The Court noted that the Petitioner's advocate sought leave to withdraw all the Writ Petitions due to the Petitioner opting for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. In light of this statement, the Court ordered that all the Writ Petitions be disposed of as withdrawn. There was no order as to costs. The operative direction was the disposal of the petitions as withdrawn, with no decision on the merits of the underlying disputes.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, specifically Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, allowed the Petitioner's request. The Court noted that the Petitioner's advocate sought leave to withdraw all the Writ Petitions due to the Petitioner opting for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. In light of this statement, the Court ordered that all the Writ Petitions be disposed of as withdrawn. There was no order as to costs. The operative direction was the disposal of the petitions as withdrawn, with no decision on the merits of the underlying disputes.
The Bombay High Court, in light of the Petitioner's statement seeking to withdraw all the Writ Petitions due to opting for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, disposed of all the above Writ Petitions as withdrawn. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original disputes that led to the filing of the writ petitions. The reasoning was solely based on the Petitioner's voluntary decision to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The ratio decidendi is that if a petitioner opts for a settlement scheme like Vivad Se Vishwas, their pending litigation related to the settled dispute will be dismissed as withdrawn. There was no order as to costs.
The Bombay High Court held that since the issue raised by the Petitioner is fully 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)], the Court is bound to follow it. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. 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 on this issue, which can be done by moving a Praecipe. The Court clarified that once revived, the Petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court is bound by its own Division Bench judgments unless stayed or overruled by a higher court, even if an appeal is pending before the Supreme Court.
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) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], was bound to follow 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 on this specific issue. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe, and upon revival, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other grounds raised. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court is bound by its own Division Bench judgments unless stayed or overruled, and a procedural defect in the issuance of a Section 148 notice, if contrary to established law, warrants quashing.
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, 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 on this issue. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe and that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other grounds raised. The rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.