Loading High Court cases…
585 orders · Page 2 of 12
The High Court dismissed the appeal. It noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Sharp Business System vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, authoritatively held that non-compete fees are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. This decision, along with the ruling in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Piramal Glass Limited, conclusively settled the issue. The Court found no substantive question of law arising for consideration. The Court observed that since the assessee had accepted the amount to be accounted for as deferred revenue expenditure, it could not claim depreciation on it, as this would be incongruous. The Court was not persuaded to remand the proceedings to the Tribunal, as the law was settled by the Supreme Court and the CIT(A)'s view was confirmed. The Court also noted that an earlier order by the Tribunal dated August 2, 2022, which accepted the assessee's claim for depreciation on non-compete fees, would not be of consequence in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncements.
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 7th October 2025 passed by the learned CIT(A) to the extent it directed the Assessing Officer not to give credit of TDS deducted merely because it was not reflected in the Petitioner’s Form 26AS. The Court also set aside the order dated 17th February 2026 passed by the Assessing Officer to the extent it gave effect to the CIT(A)'s order. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the documents submitted by the Petitioner to substantiate his claim that TDS was deducted from his salary. If satisfied, credit for the TDS must be given to the Petitioner, following the principle laid down in Manohar Jhunjhunwala (supra). The entire exercise was to be completed within six weeks.
The Bombay High Court set aside the impugned order dated October 7, 2025, passed by the CIT(A) to the extent it directed the Assessing Officer not to grant TDS credit solely because it was not reflected in the Petitioner's Form 26AS. Consequently, the order dated February 17, 2026, passed by Respondent No. 1, refusing TDS credit based on the CIT(A)'s directions, was also set aside. The Court directed the Assessing Officer (Respondent No. 1) to re-examine the documents submitted by the Petitioner to substantiate the claim of TDS deduction from his salary by Respondent No. 3. If the Assessing Officer is satisfied that TDS was indeed deducted, credit will be granted to the Petitioner as per the directions in Manohar Jhunjhunwala (supra). This exercise is to be completed within six weeks. The ratio decidendi is that TDS credit cannot be denied solely on the basis of non-reflection in Form 26AS, and other satisfactory evidence, as outlined in the Manohar Jhunjhunwala judgment, must be considered.
The High Court found the Petitioner's grievances to be well-founded. It held that the Assessment Order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the VC link and password were sent to the Petitioner after the scheduled hearing time, making it impossible for her to attend, thereby denying her a mandated personal hearing. The Court also found merit in the argument that the Revenue ought to have provided at least 7 days' time to respond to the Show Cause Notice as per the SOP dated August 3, 2022. The provision of only 4 days was contrary to the SOP. Consequently, the impugned Assessment Order dated March 12, 2026, was quashed and set aside. All consequential proceedings and notices were also quashed. The assessment proceedings were remanded to Respondent No.1 for passing a fresh Assessment Order in strict compliance with Section 144B. The Petitioner was directed to file her response to the Show Cause Notice within two weeks of the Income Tax Department opening the portal for her response. Respondent No.1 was directed to grant a personal hearing with 7 days' prior notice and pass a fresh order after considering the response and submissions. The entire exercise was to be completed by November 30, 2026.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition. The Court accepted the Revenue's submission that reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the name of a deceased person are non-est and thus invalid, particularly when the deceased had passed away before the initiation of such proceedings. The Court noted that the Revenue itself requested to quash and set aside the current reassessment proceedings based on this legal position. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated June 17, 2021, the Order dated July 20, 2022, the Notice dated July 20, 2022, the Assessment Order dated May 3, 2023, and the Demand Notice dated May 3, 2023. The Revenue was granted liberty to initiate appropriate reassessment proceedings against the legal heirs of Mr. Pratap Lalchand Shah, if otherwise permissible in law. No costs were imposed.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition. The Tribunal noted the Revenue's concession based on written instructions acknowledging that the re-assessment proceedings were initiated in the name of the deceased assessee, Mr. Pratap Lalchand Shah, after his death. The Revenue admitted that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the name of a deceased person are non-est and thus invalid, even if the assessment was subsequently completed in the name of the legal heir. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated March 17, 2022, the Order dated March 31, 2022, under Section 148A(d), the Notice dated March 31, 2022, under Section 148, the Assessment Order dated March 28, 2023, and the Demand Notice dated March 28, 2023. The Revenue was permitted to initiate appropriate re-assessment proceedings against the legal heirs if otherwise permissible by law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition. The Court noted the written instructions from the Revenue acknowledging that reassessment proceedings initiated in the name of a deceased person are non-est and therefore invalid. The Court accepted the Revenue's request to quash and set aside the current reassessment proceedings. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 28th June 2021, the Order dated 21st July 2022, the Notice dated 21st July 2022, the Assessment Order dated 8th May 2023, and the Demand Notice dated 8th May 2023. The Revenue was permitted to take out appropriate proceedings for reassessment against the legal heirs of Mr. Pratap Lalchand Shah, if otherwise permissible in law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court was prima facie satisfied that the affidavit and Paper Book No. II-A were filed by the Petitioner and were on the ITAT's file. However, regarding Paper Book No. II, the Court agreed with the Petitioner's concession that it was filed without the requisite Rule 29 petition, justifying the ITAT's stance that it was not duly filed. The Court found that the ITAT's doubts about the filing of Paper Book No. II-A and the accompanying affidavit were not sustainable, given the evidence presented. In the interest of justice, the Court partly set aside the impugned order concerning Miscellaneous Application No. 275/Mum/2019 (arising from the Revenue's appeal). This application was remitted to the ITAT for fresh consideration, focusing first on whether Paper Book No. II-A was duly filed in compliance with Rule 29, considering the accompanying affidavit. If affirmative, the ITAT is to then consider the relevance of documents in Paper Book No. II-A to the Petitioner's appeal. The Court explicitly left undecided other grounds rejected by the ITAT and did not interfere with the disposition of Miscellaneous Application No. 276/Mum/2019.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order dated January 13, 2026, passed by the Respondent No.1, was contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India V/s Rajeev Bansal. Even if the earlier order in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited was set aside by the Supreme Court regarding the applicability of TOLA to Section 151, the sanction under Section 151(i) obtained by the Respondent No.1 for the notice dated July 29, 2022, was still invalid as it was beyond June 30, 2021. The Tribunal found that on the facts of the petitioner's case, the judgment in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal favoured the petitioner on the issue of sanction under Section 151. Consequently, Respondent No.1 lacked jurisdiction to revive the proceedings under Section 147/148 of the IT Act. The Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned order dated January 13, 2026, and allowed the Writ Petition. The operative direction was to quash the impugned order and allow the writ petition.
The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, noting that the petitioner had already availed of the alternate remedy by filing an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court directed the petitioner to prosecute the already filed appeal. Recognizing the narrow compass of the issue, the Court requested the Appellate Authority to hear and decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within 12 weeks from the date of the order being brought to their notice. The petitioner was directed to inform the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who would then forward the order to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NaFAC). Furthermore, the Court directed that no coercive action would be taken by the Revenue pursuant to the assessment order until the appeal was heard and decided. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat. This decision was based on the compliance required by the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh and orders from the Principal Seat. The court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Additionally, the Civil Applications seeking amendments to the Writ Petitions were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses, with directions for necessary amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh and subsequent orders from the Principal Seat. The Court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters accordingly. Regarding the Civil Applications seeking amendments, the Court allowed them in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', permitting necessary amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. No specific tax-related issues were decided on merits.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision is based on the compliance required by the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh and subsequent orders from the Principal Seat. The Court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Furthermore, the Civil Applications seeking amendments to the Writ Petitions due to subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses. The necessary amendments are to be carried out within four weeks from the date the matters are received at the Principal Seat. No specific issues regarding the merits of the underlying tax disputes were decided.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, and connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Additionally, the Civil Applications seeking amendment of the Writ Petitions were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses, with directions for necessary amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. No specific tax provisions were adjudicated upon.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications are required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision is in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court also addressed the Civil Applications seeking amendments to the Writ Petitions due to subsequent events. For the reasons stated in these applications, the Court allowed them in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C'. The Registry was directed to carry out the necessary amendments within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. No specific issues regarding the merits of the income tax assessments were decided.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Additionally, the Civil Applications seeking amendment in the Writ Petitions by virtue of subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', with necessary amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. No specific issues regarding the merits of the income tax assessments were decided.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions, along with certain other Writ Petitions that were not on the board but were mentioned and taken up, are required to be transferred to the Principal Seat. This decision is in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh. The Court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Furthermore, the Civil Applications filed by the applicants seeking amendment in the Writ Petitions by virtue of subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses 'B' and 'C'. The necessary amendments are to be carried out within four weeks from the date the matters are received at the Principal Seat. No specific issue was left undecided.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court also addressed the Civil Applications seeking amendments to the Writ Petitions. For the reasons stated in these applications, the Court allowed them, permitting amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. The operative direction was for the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat.
The High Court held that all the Writ Petitions listed before it were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat, in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh. The Court directed the Registry to effectuate this transfer. Furthermore, the Court considered the Civil Applications filed by the applicants seeking amendments to their respective Writ Petitions due to subsequent events. For the reasons stated in these applications, the Court allowed the Civil Applications in terms of their prayer clauses 'B' and 'C'. The judgment also stipulated that the necessary amendments should be carried out within four weeks from the date the matters are received at the Principal Seat. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat. This decision was made in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh (supra) and prior directions from the Principal Seat. The Court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters accordingly. Regarding the Civil Applications seeking amendments, the Court allowed them in terms of the prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', granting four weeks from the date of receipt at the Principal Seat for the necessary amendments to be carried out. No specific issues regarding the merits of the income tax assessments were decided.
The High Court held that the petitioner's submission had merit. It was undisputed that the notice under Section 148 was issued on July 13, 2022, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Court referred to paragraphs 19(e) and (f) of the Supreme Court's judgment in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal, which recorded the Revenue's concession that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. This concession was subsequently followed by the Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. and was relied upon by the Supreme Court in dismissing the SLP in Asstt. CIT v. Nehal Ashit Shah. The High Court also noted its own decision in Verjinia Foods Limited, which followed the same principle. Therefore, the Court found that the Section 148 notice dated July 13, 2022, and all consequential orders, including the assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders, and recovery notices, were liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on other grounds raised in the petition.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and connected Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court directed the Registry to effect the transfer of all these matters to the Principal Seat. Additionally, the Civil Applications seeking amendments to the Writ Petitions due to subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses, with directions for necessary amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated April 10, 2026, in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court directed the Registry to facilitate this transfer. Furthermore, the Civil Applications seeking amendment to the Writ Petitions due to subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses 'B' and 'C'. The necessary amendments are to be carried out within four weeks from the date the matters are received at the Principal Seat. No specific issue regarding the merits of the tax disputes themselves was decided.
The High Court directed the Registry to transfer all the listed Writ Petitions to the Principal Seat. This decision was made in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh and subsequent orders from the Principal Seat. The Court also allowed the Civil Applications seeking amendments to the Writ Petitions due to subsequent events, directing that the necessary amendments be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. No specific substantive issues regarding income tax law were decided, as the judgment focused on procedural transfer and amendment of pleadings.
The High Court directed the Registry to transfer all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications to the Principal Seat. This decision was made in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh and subsequent orders from the Principal Seat. The court also allowed the Civil Applications seeking amendment to the Writ Petitions due to subsequent events, directing that the necessary amendments be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. The specific grounds for transfer or the nature of the amendments were not detailed in this excerpt.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. This direction was issued in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh and prior orders from the Principal Seat. The court also considered the Civil Applications filed by the applicants seeking amendment to their Writ Petitions due to subsequent events. For the reasons stated in these applications, the court allowed the Civil Applications in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C'. The Registry was directed to carry out the necessary amendments within four weeks from the date the matters are received at the Principal Seat. The primary focus of the judgment was procedural, concerning the transfer of cases and allowing amendments, rather than a decision on the merits of the underlying tax disputes.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and connected Civil Applications are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision is in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court also noted that certain Writ Petitions, which were not initially on the board, were taken up and are also to be transferred to the Principal Seat. Furthermore, the Civil Applications seeking amendment in the Writ Petitions by virtue of subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses 'B' and 'C'. The Registry was directed to carry out the necessary amendments within four weeks from the date the matters are received at the Principal Seat.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications are required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision is in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, and connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Furthermore, for the Civil Applications seeking amendment due to subsequent events, the Court allowed them in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', directing that necessary amendments be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. No specific issues regarding the merits of the income tax assessments were decided.
The High Court directed the transfer of all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications to the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh. The Court also addressed the Civil Applications seeking amendments to the Writ Petitions due to subsequent events. For the reasons stated in these applications, the Civil Applications were allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C'. The Registry was instructed to carry out the necessary amendments within four weeks from the date the matters are received at the Principal Seat. No specific issues regarding the merits of the tax disputes were decided.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court also directed the Registry to transfer these matters accordingly. Furthermore, the Civil Applications seeking amendment in the Writ Petitions by virtue of subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses. The Court specified that necessary amendments should be carried out within four weeks from the date the matters are received at the Principal Seat. No issue was left undecided, as the court focused on procedural transfer and amendment.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment dated April 10, 2026, and previous orders of the Principal Seat. The Court directed the Registry to effectuate the transfer of all these matters. Furthermore, the Civil Applications seeking amendment to the Writ Petitions by virtue of subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses. The Court specified that the necessary amendments were to be carried out within four weeks from the date the matters were received at the Principal Seat. No specific issue regarding the merits of the tax disputes was decided, as the focus was on procedural transfer and amendment.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court, in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment and the orders of the Principal Seat. The Court directed the Registry to effect this transfer. Regarding the Civil Applications seeking amendments, the Court allowed them in terms of the prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', granting the applicants four weeks from the date of receipt at the Principal Seat to carry out the necessary amendments. No specific tax provisions were discussed as the matter was procedural.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated April 10, 2026, in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Furthermore, the Civil Applications seeking amendments to the Writ Petitions by virtue of subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses, with directions for necessary amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. No issues were left undecided.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat, in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh. The court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Regarding the Civil Applications, the court found the reasons stated therein to be valid and allowed them in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', permitting necessary amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. No specific issues related to the Income Tax Act were decided on merits.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications are required to be transferred to the Principal Seat. This decision is based on compliance with the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court also directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Furthermore, the Civil Applications seeking amendment in the Writ Petitions by virtue of subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', with necessary amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications are required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh. The court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Furthermore, the Civil Applications seeking amendment to the Writ Petitions due to subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses. The court specified that the necessary amendments should be carried out within four weeks from the date the matters are received at the Principal Seat. No specific issues regarding the merits of the tax assessments were decided, as the focus was on the procedural transfer of cases.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision was based on the compliance with the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court also allowed the Civil Applications seeking amendments to the Writ Petitions by virtue of subsequent events, in terms of the prayer clauses 'B' and 'C'. The Registry was directed to carry out the necessary amendments within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat. This decision was based on the compliance required with the Supreme Court's judgment dated April 10, 2026, and the orders of the Principal Seat. The Court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Regarding the Civil Applications seeking amendments, the High Court allowed them in terms of the prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', granting the applicants permission to carry out the necessary amendments within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. No specific tax provisions were discussed or decided upon, as the matter primarily dealt with procedural transfer and amendment.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court directed the Registry to effectuate this transfer. Furthermore, the Civil Applications seeking amendment to the Writ Petitions by virtue of subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses. The Court stipulated that necessary amendments should be carried out within four weeks from the date the matters are received at the Principal Seat. No specific issues regarding the merits of the income tax assessments were decided.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated April 10, 2026, and previous orders of the Principal Seat. The Court directed the Registry to facilitate this transfer. Additionally, the Court considered the Civil Applications seeking amendments to the Writ Petitions based on subsequent events. For the reasons stated in these applications, the Court allowed them in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', granting permission for necessary amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat.
The High Court held that the writ petitions were to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court noted that the Petitioners and their Advocates had not taken any steps to circulate the Petitions after February 8, 2021, and that no one appeared for the Petitioners when the matter was called out for hearing. The Court concluded that the Petitioners appeared to be not interested in pursuing the Petitions. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed on this procedural ground, without delving into any substantive legal issues.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, and also in line with orders previously passed by the Principal Seat. The Court directed the Registry to effect this transfer. Furthermore, the Court considered the Civil Applications filed by the applicants seeking amendment of their respective Writ Petitions due to subsequent events. For the reasons stated in these applications, the Court allowed them in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', directing that necessary amendments be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. No specific issues regarding the merits of the income tax assessments were decided, as the focus was on procedural transfer and amendment.
The High Court held that the writ petitions were to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court noted that the Petitioners and their Advocates had not taken any steps to circulate the Petitions after February 8, 2021, and that no one appeared for the Petitioners when the matter was called out for hearing. The Court concluded that the Petitioners appeared to be not interested in pursuing the Petitions. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed on this procedural ground, without delving into any substantive legal issues.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court, as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh (supra) and the orders of the Principal Seat. The Court directed the Registry to effect this transfer. Regarding the Civil Applications seeking amendments, the Court allowed them in terms of the prayer clauses 'B' and 'C' for the reasons stated therein. The necessary amendments were to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. No specific substantive issues related to income tax assessment were decided in this order.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court directed the Registry to effectuate this transfer. Furthermore, the Civil Applications seeking amendments to the Writ Petitions due to subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses, with a direction for necessary amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications are required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision is in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Additionally, for the Civil Applications seeking amendment due to subsequent events, the Court allowed them in terms of the prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', directing that necessary amendments be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh and prior orders from the Principal Seat. The Court directed the Registry to effectuate this transfer. Regarding the Civil Applications, the Court allowed them in terms of the prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', permitting amendments to the Writ Petitions based on subsequent events. The necessary amendments were to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and connected Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court also directed the Registry to facilitate this transfer. Furthermore, the Civil Applications seeking amendments to the Writ Petitions due to subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', with necessary amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat. No issues were left undecided.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications are required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision is in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The Court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Furthermore, the Civil Applications seeking amendment in the Writ Petitions by virtue of subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses 'B' and 'C', with necessary amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat.
The High Court held that all the listed Writ Petitions and Civil Applications were required to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This decision was made in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh, along with connected Special Leave Petitions. The court directed the Registry to transfer all these matters to the Principal Seat. Additionally, the Civil Applications seeking amendments to the Writ Petitions due to subsequent events were allowed in terms of their prayer clauses, with directions for necessary amendments to be carried out within four weeks of the matters being received at the Principal Seat.