Bombay High Court Judgments — 2026

The High Court has not decided the merits of the case. Instead, it has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that all writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court. The petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include challenges to Section 147-A within one week. Matters where amendments are carried out will be transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing on August 31, 2026. If amendments are necessary but not made before transfer, they can be carried out within one week after the transfer. Petitioners are also given the liberty to file a 'Pursis' if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred to the Principal Seat. No decision has been made on the substantive validity of Section 147-A.

The High Court, in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment, has directed that all writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include challenges to Section 147-A within one week. If amendments are not carried out before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. Matters not on the board are also to be transferred. Petitioners have the liberty to file a 'Pursis' if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred to the Principal Seat. The court has not decided on the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of handling these cases.

The High Court has not decided the merits of the case. Instead, it has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that all writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court. The petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include challenges to Section 147-A within one week. Matters where amendments are carried out will be transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing on August 31, 2026. If amendments are necessary but not made before transfer, they can be carried out within one week after the transfer. Petitioners are also given the liberty to file a 'Pursis' if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred to the Principal Seat. No decision has been made on the substantive validity of Section 147-A.

The High Court, in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment, has directed that all writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include challenges to Section 147-A within one week. If amendments are not carried out before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. Matters not on the board are also to be transferred. Petitioners have the liberty to file a 'Pursis' if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred to the Principal Seat. The court has not decided on the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of handling these cases.

The High Court has not decided the substantive issue of the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the court has issued procedural directions. It has ordered that all writ petitions intending to challenge the validity of Section 147-A be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. The petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to incorporate this challenge within one week. Matters that are not on the board but intend to challenge Section 147-A are also to be transferred. The court has also provided an option for petitioners not wishing to transfer their matters to the Principal Seat to file a Pursis. The final hearing for similar groups of matters is scheduled for August 31, 2026, at the Principal Seat.

The High Court, in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment, has directed that all writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include challenges to Section 147-A within one week. If amendments are not carried out before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. Matters not on the board are also to be transferred. Petitioners have the liberty to file a 'Pursis' if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred to the Principal Seat. The court has not decided on the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of handling these cases.

The High Court did not decide the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act. Instead, the court issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The High Court directed that all Writ Petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A should be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. Petitioners were granted one week to carry out amendments to their petitions to specifically challenge this section. Matters where amendments were carried out were to be transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing on August 31, 2026. The court also allowed petitioners to file a 'Pursis' if they did not wish for their matters to be transferred to the Principal Seat.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, held that in view of the Administrative Order dated June 26, 2026, the Registry was directed to transfer all the listed writ petitions (WP Nos. 6168/2025, 7585/2025, 11217/2025, 411/2026, 412/2026, 2519/2026, 2713/2026, 2714/2026, 2715/2026, 2716/2026, 2718/2026, 2719/2026, 2721/2026, 2722/2026, 2723/2026, 2724/2026, 2725/2026, 2726/2026, and 3454/2026) to the Principal Seat at Bombay expeditiously. The court's decision was based on the existing administrative order, which dictated the transfer. No arguments were recorded for the revenue side in opposition to this transfer. The court did not delve into the substantive grounds of the writ petitions, as the matter was resolved by directing the transfer as per the administrative directive. The ratio decidendi is that administrative orders concerning the transfer of cases are to be complied with by the Registry.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, held that in view of the Administrative Order dated June 26, 2026, the Registry was directed to transfer all the listed writ petitions (WP Nos. 6168/2025, 7585/2025, 11217/2025, 411/2026, 412/2026, 2519/2026, 2713/2026, 2714/2026, 2715/2026, 2716/2026, 2718/2026, 2719/2026, 2721/2026, 2722/2026, 2723/2026, 2724/2026, 2725/2026, 2726/2026, and 3454/2026) to the Principal Seat at Bombay expeditiously. The court's decision was based on the existing administrative order, which dictated the transfer. No arguments were recorded for the revenue side in opposition to this transfer. The court did not delve into the substantive grounds of the writ petitions, as the matter was resolved by directing the transfer as per the administrative directive. The ratio decidendi is that administrative orders concerning the transfer of cases are to be complied with by the Registry.

The High Court held that in view of an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026, the Registry was directed to transfer all the listed writ petitions to the Principal Seat at Bombay expeditiously. This decision was made by the bench comprising Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. and Neeraj P. Dhote, J. The reasoning behind this transfer is based on an administrative directive, implying that the Principal Seat is the designated forum for hearing such matters. No findings were made on the substantive issues related to the income tax assessments or the rights of the petitioners against the revenue. The court did not delve into the merits of any individual petition. The operative direction is solely for the transfer of the cases.

The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The primary direction is that all Writ Petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This is to facilitate a consolidated hearing with similar matters already scheduled for final hearing on August 31, 2026. The Court has permitted the petitioners to amend their petitions to specifically challenge Section 147-A within one week. If amendments are not carried out before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. The judgment does not provide any finding on the validity of Section 147-A itself, nor does it offer any reasoning or ratio decidendi on the substantive legal issues. The operative direction is the transfer of cases and permission for amendments.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, held that the writ petitions should be transferred to the Principal Seat at Bombay. This decision was based on an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026. The court directed the Registry to expeditiously transfer all the listed writ petitions (WP No. 6168 of 2025 and connected petitions) to the Principal Seat at Bombay. No findings were made on the merits of the individual cases or the substantive tax disputes, as the judgment solely concerns the administrative transfer of jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that administrative orders concerning the transfer of cases must be complied with by the Registry.

The High Court held that the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, is clearly time-barred. This decision is based on the admitted fact that the Notice was issued on or after April 1, 2021, and pertains to AY 2015-16. The Court relied on the concession made by the learned Additional Solicitor General before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. As per the Supreme Court's directions, if the matter pertains to AY 2015-16, no further adjudicatory exercise is required, except to declare the Notice as time-barred. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, the impugned Notice was set aside, and any consequential actions were quashed. The rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.

The High Court directed that all Writ Petitions where the petitioners intend to challenge the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act should be transferred to the Principal Seat. The petitioners were granted one week to carry out amendments to their petitions to incorporate this challenge. If amendments were not carried out before transfer, they would have one week after the transfer to do so. The court also allowed petitioners to file a Pursis if they did not wish for their matters to be transferred to the Principal Seat. The judgment does not decide the validity of Section 147-A itself, but rather sets out the procedure for handling such challenges.

The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the court has issued procedural directions. It has ordered that all writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This is in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment. The petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include a challenge to Section 147-A within one week. If amendments are not carried out before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. The court has also allowed petitioners to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred. The final hearing for similar groups of cases is scheduled for August 31, 2026, at the Principal Seat.

The High Court held that in view of an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026, the Registry was directed to transfer all the listed writ petitions (WP Nos. 6168/2025, 7585/2025, 11217/2025, 411/2026, 412/2026, 2519/2026, 2713/2026, 2714/2026, 2715/2026, 2716/2026, 2718/2026, 2719/2026, 2721/2026, 2722/2026, 2723/2026, 2724/2026, 2725/2026, 2726/2026, and 3454/2026) to the Principal Seat at Bombay expeditiously. The reasoning was based solely on the aforementioned administrative order, indicating a consolidation or re-allocation of jurisdiction. No decision was made on the substantive merits of any tax dispute, as the matter was purely procedural. The ratio decidendi is that administrative directions regarding the transfer of cases are to be followed promptly by the registry.

The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the court has issued procedural directions. It has ordered that all writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This is in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment. The petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include a challenge to Section 147-A within one week. If amendments are not carried out before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. The court has also allowed petitioners to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred. The final hearing for similar groups of cases is scheduled for August 31, 2026, at the Principal Seat.

The High Court held that in view of an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026, the Registry was directed to transfer all the listed writ petitions (WP Nos. 6168/2025, 7585/2025, 11217/2025, 411/2026, 412/2026, 2519/2026, 2713/2026, 2714/2026, 2715/2026, 2716/2026, 2718/2026, 2719/2026, 2721/2026, 2722/2026, 2723/2026, 2724/2026, 2725/2026, 2726/2026, and 3454/2026) to the Principal Seat at Bombay expeditiously. The reasoning was based solely on the aforementioned administrative order, indicating a consolidation or re-allocation of jurisdiction. No decision was made on the substantive merits of any tax dispute, as the matter was purely procedural. The ratio decidendi is that administrative directions regarding the transfer of cases are to be followed promptly by the registry.

The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the court has issued procedural directions. It has ordered that all writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This is in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment. The petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include a challenge to Section 147-A within one week. If amendments are not carried out before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. The court has also allowed petitioners to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred. The final hearing for similar groups of cases is scheduled for August 31, 2026, at the Principal Seat.

The High Court held that in view of an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026, the Registry was directed to transfer all the listed writ petitions (WP Nos. 6168/2025, 7585/2025, 11217/2025, 411/2026, 412/2026, 2519/2026, 2713/2026, 2714/2026, 2715/2026, 2716/2026, 2718/2026, 2719/2026, 2721/2026, 2722/2026, 2723/2026, 2724/2026, 2725/2026, 2726/2026, and 3454/2026) to the Principal Seat at Bombay expeditiously. The reasoning was based solely on the aforementioned administrative order, indicating a consolidation or re-allocation of jurisdiction. No decision was made on the substantive merits of any tax dispute, as the matter was purely procedural. The ratio decidendi is that administrative directions regarding the transfer of cases are to be followed promptly by the registry.

The High Court held that in view of an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026, the Registry was directed to transfer all the listed writ petitions (WP Nos. 6168/2025, 7585/2025, 11217/2025, 411/2026, 412/2026, 2519/2026, 2713/2026, 2714/2026, 2715/2026, 2716/2026, 2718/2026, 2719/2026, 2721/2026, 2722/2026, 2723/2026, 2724/2026, 2725/2026, 2726/2026, and 3454/2026) to the Principal Seat at Bombay expeditiously. The reasoning was based solely on the aforementioned administrative order, indicating a consolidation or re-allocation of jurisdiction. No decision was made on the substantive merits of any tax dispute, as the matter was purely procedural. The ratio decidendi is that administrative directions regarding the transfer of cases are to be followed promptly by the registry.

The High Court, comprising Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ., did not decide any substantive issues related to the income tax matters of the petitioners. Instead, the Court issued an administrative direction based on an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026. The Court directed the Registry to expeditiously transfer all the mentioned writ petitions to the Principal Seat at Bombay. No findings were made on the merits of any petition, and no relief was granted or denied concerning the income tax disputes. The operative direction solely pertains to the procedural transfer of the cases. No issues were left undecided as the court did not delve into the substantive grounds of the petitions.

The High Court, comprising Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ., did not decide any substantive issues related to the income tax matters of the petitioners. Instead, the Court issued an administrative direction based on an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026. The Court directed the Registry to expeditiously transfer all the mentioned writ petitions to the Principal Seat at Bombay. No findings were made on the merits of any petition, and no relief was granted or denied concerning the income tax disputes. The operative direction solely pertains to the procedural transfer of the cases. No issues were left undecided as the court did not delve into the substantive grounds of the petitions.

The High Court, comprising Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ., did not decide any substantive issues related to the income tax matters of the petitioners. Instead, the Court issued an administrative direction based on an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026. The Court directed the Registry to expeditiously transfer all the mentioned writ petitions to the Principal Seat at Bombay. No findings were made on the merits of any petition, and no relief was granted or denied concerning the income tax disputes. The operative direction solely pertains to the procedural transfer of the cases. No issues were left undecided as the court did not delve into the substantive grounds of the petitions.

The High Court, comprising Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ., did not decide any substantive issues related to the income tax matters of the petitioners. Instead, the Court issued an administrative direction based on an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026. The Court directed the Registry to expeditiously transfer all the mentioned writ petitions to the Principal Seat at Bombay. No findings were made on the merits of any petition, and no relief was granted or denied concerning the income tax disputes. The operative direction solely pertains to the procedural transfer of the cases. No issues were left undecided as the court did not delve into the substantive grounds of the petitions.

The High Court, comprising Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ., did not decide any substantive issues related to the income tax matters of the petitioners. Instead, the Court issued an administrative direction based on an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026. The Court directed the Registry to expeditiously transfer all the mentioned writ petitions to the Principal Seat at Bombay. No findings were made on the merits of any petition, and no relief was granted or denied concerning the income tax disputes. The operative direction solely pertains to the procedural transfer of the cases. No issues were left undecided as the court did not delve into the substantive grounds of the petitions.

The High Court, comprising Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ., did not decide any substantive issues related to the income tax matters of the petitioners. Instead, the Court issued an administrative direction based on an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026. The Court directed the Registry to expeditiously transfer all the mentioned writ petitions to the Principal Seat at Bombay. No findings were made on the merits of any petition, and no relief was granted or denied concerning the income tax disputes. The operative direction solely pertains to the procedural transfer of the cases. No issues were left undecided as the court did not delve into the substantive grounds of the petitions.

The High Court, comprising Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ., did not decide any substantive issues related to the income tax matters of the petitioners. Instead, the Court issued an administrative direction based on an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026. The Court directed the Registry to expeditiously transfer all the mentioned writ petitions to the Principal Seat at Bombay. No findings were made on the merits of any petition, and no relief was granted or denied concerning the income tax disputes. The operative direction solely pertains to the procedural transfer of the cases. No issues were left undecided as the court did not delve into the substantive grounds of the petitions.

The High Court, comprising Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ., did not decide any substantive issues related to the income tax matters of the petitioners. Instead, the Court issued an administrative direction based on an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026. The Court directed the Registry to expeditiously transfer all the mentioned writ petitions to the Principal Seat at Bombay. No findings were made on the merits of any petition, and no relief was granted or denied concerning the income tax disputes. The operative direction solely pertains to the procedural transfer of the cases. No issues were left undecided as the court did not delve into the substantive grounds of the petitions.

The High Court decided on a procedural matter concerning the transfer of the writ petitions. In view of an Administrative Order dated June 26, 2026, the Registry was directed to expeditiously transfer all the listed writ petitions from the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur to the Principal Seat at Bombay. No findings were made on the merits of the individual tax disputes, nor were any substantive issues of income tax law adjudicated. The court's decision was solely administrative, aimed at streamlining the judicial process based on the aforementioned administrative order.

The High Court has not decided the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act. Instead, it has issued procedural directions. The court acknowledged that the present writ petitions are listed in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment. It directed the respective advocates to identify the matters where the validity of Section 147-A is to be challenged and to transfer those matters to the Principal Seat. The petitioners were granted permission to amend their petitions to include this challenge within one week. The court further stipulated that if amendments are necessary and not carried out before transfer, they should be completed within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. Petitioners have the liberty to file a Pursis if they do not wish to transfer their matters to the Principal Seat. No decision has been made on the merits of any individual case.

The High Court, in its administrative capacity, directed the Registry to transfer all the listed writ petitions (WP Nos. 6168/2025, 7585/2025, 11217/2025, 411/2026, 412/2026, 2519/2026, 2713/2026, 2714/2026, 2715/2026, 2716/2026, 2718/2026, 2719/2026, 2721/2026, 2722/2026, 2723/2026, 2724/2026, 2725/2026, 2726/2026, and 3454/2026) from the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur to the Principal Seat at Bombay. This decision was based on an Administrative Order dated June 26, 2026. The court instructed the Registry to carry out this transfer expeditiously. No decision was made on the merits of any of the tax disputes raised in the writ petitions, as the order was purely procedural. The ratio decidendi is that administrative directions for transfer of cases, when issued, must be complied with promptly by the Registry.

The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge both the Assessment Order dated March 25, 2026, and the notice issued under Section 148 before the CIT(A) on all available legal grounds. The court further directed that if the appeal is filed within four weeks from the date of the order, the CIT(A) shall entertain it on merits without raising any issue of limitation, thereby condoning any delay. Additionally, if a stay application is filed before the Assessing Officer within the same four-week period, the Income Tax Department was directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner until the stay application is decided. The court clarified that the authorities would decide the appeal and stay application on merits and in accordance with law if filed within the stipulated time. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court, comprising Justices Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Neeraj P. Dhote, directed the Registry to transfer all the listed writ petitions (WP Nos. 6168/2025, 7585/2025, 11217/2025, 411/2026, 412/2026, 2519/2026, 2713/2026, 2714/2026, 2715/2026, 2716/2026, 2718/2026, 2719/2026, 2721/2026, 2722/2026, 2723/2026, 2724/2026, 2725/2026, 2726/2026, and 3454/2026) to the Principal Seat at Bombay. This direction was issued in view of an Administrative Order dated 26th June 2026. The court ordered the transfer to be done expeditiously. No findings were made on the merits of the writ petitions themselves, as the decision was purely administrative.

The High Court has not decided the merits of the petitions. Instead, it has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The court has directed that all writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be identified by the respective advocates. These identified matters are to be immediately transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. Petitioners are granted one week to carry out amendments to their petitions to specifically challenge Section 147-A. If amendments are not carried out before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. Petitioners are also given the liberty to file a 'Pursis' if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred to the Principal Seat. The court has scheduled similar groups of matters for final hearing at the Principal Seat on August 31, 2026.

The High Court has not decided the merits of the petitions. Instead, it has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The court has directed that all writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be identified by the respective advocates. These identified matters are to be immediately transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. Petitioners are granted one week to carry out amendments to their petitions to specifically challenge Section 147-A. If amendments are not carried out before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. Petitioners are also given the liberty to file a 'Pursis' if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred to the Principal Seat. The court has scheduled similar groups of matters for final hearing at the Principal Seat on August 31, 2026.

The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act. Instead, it has issued procedural directions. The court has acknowledged that the petitions are listed in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment. It has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include this challenge. The court has also provided a timeline for carrying out amendments and specified that if amendments are not made before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. The court has also allowed petitioners to file a 'Pursis' if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred.

The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act. Instead, it has issued procedural directions. The court has acknowledged that the petitions are listed in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment. It has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include this challenge. The court has also provided a timeline for carrying out amendments and specified that if amendments are not made before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. The court has also allowed petitioners to file a 'Pursis' if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, where a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. The Court has also made provisions for amendments to be carried out after the transfer of cases to the Principal Seat if necessary. No decision has been rendered on the core issue of the validity of Section 147-A itself; the focus is on facilitating the hearing of such challenges.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, where a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. The Court has also made provisions for amendments to be carried out after the transfer of cases to the Principal Seat if necessary. No decision has been rendered on the core issue of the validity of Section 147-A itself; the focus is on facilitating the hearing of such challenges.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, where a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. The Court has also made provisions for amendments to be carried out after the transfer of cases to the Principal Seat if necessary. No decision has been rendered on the core issue of the validity of Section 147-A itself; the focus is on facilitating the hearing of such challenges.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, where a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. The Court has also made provisions for amendments to be carried out after the transfer of cases to the Principal Seat if necessary. No decision has been rendered on the core issue of the validity of Section 147-A itself; the focus is on facilitating the hearing of such challenges.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, where a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. The Court has also made provisions for amendments to be carried out after the transfer of cases to the Principal Seat if necessary. No decision has been rendered on the core issue of the validity of Section 147-A itself; the focus is on facilitating the hearing of such challenges.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, where a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. The Court has also made provisions for amendments to be carried out after the transfer of cases to the Principal Seat if necessary. No decision has been rendered on the core issue of the validity of Section 147-A itself; the focus is on facilitating the hearing of such challenges.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, where a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. The Court has also made provisions for amendments to be carried out after the transfer of cases to the Principal Seat if necessary. No decision has been rendered on the core issue of the validity of Section 147-A itself; the focus is on facilitating the hearing of such challenges.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, where a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. The Court has also made provisions for amendments to be carried out after the transfer of cases to the Principal Seat if necessary. No decision has been rendered on the core issue of the validity of Section 147-A itself; the focus is on facilitating the hearing of such challenges.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, where a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. The Court has also made provisions for amendments to be carried out after the transfer of cases to the Principal Seat if necessary. No decision has been rendered on the core issue of the validity of Section 147-A itself; the focus is on facilitating the hearing of such challenges.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, where a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. The Court has also made provisions for amendments to be carried out after the transfer of cases to the Principal Seat if necessary. No decision has been rendered on the core issue of the validity of Section 147-A itself; the focus is on facilitating the hearing of such challenges.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, where a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. The Court has also made provisions for amendments to be carried out after the transfer of cases to the Principal Seat if necessary. No decision has been rendered on the core issue of the validity of Section 147-A itself; the focus is on facilitating the hearing of such challenges.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, where a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. The Court has also made provisions for amendments to be carried out after the transfer of cases to the Principal Seat if necessary. No decision has been rendered on the core issue of the validity of Section 147-A itself; the focus is on facilitating the hearing of such challenges.