Loading High Court cases…
539 orders · Page 5 of 11
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer, before issuing a notice under Section 148, is required to conduct an inquiry, provide an opportunity of being heard via a show-cause notice, consider the assessee's reply, and then decide whether it is a fit case to issue a notice under Section 148 by passing an order under Section 148A(d). The Court found that the impugned order, specifically paragraph 5, was not satisfactory regarding the reasoning, especially considering the details supplied by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that the matter required consideration. The impugned order dated March 31, 2022, was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent-Authority. The respondent was directed to proceed further under Sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 148A, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and then pass a detailed order under Section 148A(d). The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the case on merits.
The Gujarat High Court, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 and allied matters, decided on 04.05.2022), disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The Supreme Court had held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the Assessing Officer providing information within thirty days and assessees replying within two weeks. The requirement of prior approval for inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and Revenue were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition involved issues other than Section 148, a fresh petition could be filed.
The High Court of Gujarat, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 and allied matters, decided on 04.05.2022), disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The Supreme Court's order, which was made applicable PAN India, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the Assessing Officer to provide information and material relied upon within thirty days, and assessees to reply within two weeks thereafter. The requirement of conducting an enquiry with prior approval under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from 01.04.2021 till date. Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to assessees, including under Section 149, and rights/contentions of both parties under the Finance Act, 2021, were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition contained issues other than Section 148 of the IT Act, a fresh petition could be filed.
The High Court of Gujarat, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 and allied matters, decided on 04.05.2022), disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The Supreme Court's order, which was made applicable PAN India, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the Assessing Officer to provide information and material relied upon within thirty days, and assessees to reply within two weeks thereafter. The requirement of conducting an enquiry with prior approval under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from 01.04.2021 till date. Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to assessees, including under Section 149, and rights/contentions of both parties under the Finance Act, 2021, were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition contained issues other than Section 148 of the IT Act, a fresh petition could be filed.
The High Court of Gujarat, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 and allied matters, decided on 04.05.2022), disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The Supreme Court's order, which was made applicable PAN India, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the Assessing Officer to provide information and material relied upon within thirty days, and assessees to reply within two weeks thereafter. The requirement of conducting an enquiry with prior approval under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from 01.04.2021 till date. Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to assessees, including under Section 149, and rights/contentions of both parties under the Finance Act, 2021, were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition contained issues other than Section 148 of the IT Act, a fresh petition could be filed.
The High Court of Gujarat, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 and allied matters, decided on 04.05.2022), disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The Supreme Court's order, which was made applicable PAN India, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the Assessing Officer to provide information and material relied upon within thirty days, and assessees to reply within two weeks thereafter. The requirement of conducting an enquiry with prior approval under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from 01.04.2021 till date. Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to assessees, including under Section 149, and rights/contentions of both parties under the Finance Act, 2021, were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition contained issues other than Section 148 of the IT Act, a fresh petition could be filed.
The High Court of Gujarat, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 and allied matters, decided on 04.05.2022), disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The Supreme Court's order, which was made applicable PAN India, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the Assessing Officer to provide information and material relied upon within thirty days, and assessees to reply within two weeks thereafter. The requirement of conducting an enquiry with prior approval under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from 01.04.2021 till date. Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to assessees, including under Section 149, and rights/contentions of both parties under the Finance Act, 2021, were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition contained issues other than Section 148 of the IT Act, a fresh petition could be filed.
The High Court of Gujarat disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudication on merit, in light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Apex Court's order, passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were subject to writ petitions, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was to provide information relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, allowing assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry with prior approval under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order. Subsequently, Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees, including those under Section 149, and rights of the Revenue were preserved. The Apex Court's order was made applicable PAN India and would govern pending writ petitions. The High Court clarified that if any other issue existed in the petitions beyond Section 148, liberty was reserved to file fresh petitions.
The High Court of Gujarat disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudication on merit, in light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Apex Court's order, passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were subject to writ petitions, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was to provide information relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, allowing assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry with prior approval under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order. Subsequently, Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees, including those under Section 149, and rights of the Revenue were preserved. The Apex Court's order was made applicable PAN India and would govern pending writ petitions. The High Court clarified that if any other issue existed in the petitions beyond Section 148, liberty was reserved to file fresh petitions.
The High Court of Gujarat, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 and allied matters, decided on 04.05.2022), disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The Supreme Court's order, which was made applicable PAN India, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the Assessing Officer to provide information and material relied upon within thirty days, and assessees to reply within two weeks thereafter. The requirement of conducting an enquiry with prior approval under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from 01.04.2021 till date. Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to assessees, including under Section 149, and rights/contentions of both parties under the Finance Act, 2021, were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition contained issues other than Section 148 of the IT Act, a fresh petition could be filed.
The High Court of Gujarat disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudication on merit, in light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Apex Court's order, passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were subject to writ petitions, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was to provide information relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, allowing assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry with prior approval under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, till the date of the order. Subsequently, Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees, including those under Section 149, and rights of the Revenue were preserved. The Apex Court's order was made applicable PAN India and would govern pending writ petitions. The High Court clarified that if any other issue existed in the petitions beyond Section 148, liberty was reserved to file fresh petitions.
The High Court of Gujarat, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 and allied matters, decided on 04.05.2022), disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The Supreme Court's order, which was made applicable PAN India, directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the Assessing Officer to provide information and material relied upon within thirty days, and assessees to reply within two weeks thereafter. The requirement of conducting an enquiry with prior approval under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from 01.04.2021 till date. Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to assessees, including under Section 149, and rights/contentions of both parties under the Finance Act, 2021, were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition contained issues other than Section 148 of the IT Act, a fresh petition could be filed.
The Gujarat High Court, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal, disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The High Court reproduced the findings and observations of the Apex Court, which held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, from April 1, 2021, onwards, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon to the assessees within thirty days, allowing them two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Thereafter, Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition contained issues other than Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, liberty was reserved to file a fresh petition.
The Gujarat High Court, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal, disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The High Court reproduced the findings and observations of the Apex Court, which held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, from April 1, 2021, onwards, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon to the assessees within thirty days, allowing them two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Thereafter, Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition contained issues other than Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, liberty was reserved to file a fresh petition.
The Gujarat High Court, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal, disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The High Court reproduced the findings and observations of the Apex Court, which held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, from April 1, 2021, onwards, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon to the assessees within thirty days, allowing them two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Thereafter, Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition contained issues other than Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, liberty was reserved to file a fresh petition.
The Gujarat High Court, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal, disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The High Court reproduced the findings and observations of the Apex Court, which held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, from April 1, 2021, onwards, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon to the assessees within thirty days, allowing them two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Thereafter, Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition contained issues other than Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, liberty was reserved to file a fresh petition.
The Gujarat High Court, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal, disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The High Court reproduced the findings and observations of the Apex Court, which held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, from April 1, 2021, onwards, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon to the assessees within thirty days, allowing them two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Thereafter, Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition contained issues other than Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, liberty was reserved to file a fresh petition.
The Gujarat High Court, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal, disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The High Court reproduced the findings and observations of the Apex Court, which held that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, from April 1, 2021, onwards, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon to the assessees within thirty days, allowing them two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Thereafter, Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition contained issues other than Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, liberty was reserved to file a fresh petition.
The Gujarat High Court, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 and allied matters, decided on 04.05.2022), disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating them on merit. The Supreme Court had held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the Assessing Officer providing information within thirty days and assessees replying within two weeks. The requirement of prior approval for inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and Revenue were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition involved issues other than Section 148, a fresh petition could be filed.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and construed as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing them two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued under the unamended Section 148 from April 1, 2021, till date. The Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and modified similar judgments passed by various High Courts.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court of Gujarat disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act and construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for such notices. Assessing officers were directed to provide information relied upon to the assessees, who would then have two weeks to reply. Thereafter, assessing officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and, if necessary, issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and other laws were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and modified similar judgments passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any other issue beyond Section 148 was involved, the writ applicant would be at liberty to file a fresh application.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices are to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer is required to provide the assessees with the information and material relied upon within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) with prior approval is dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. After following the procedure under Section 148A, the Assessing Officer may issue a notice under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and other laws remain preserved. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any other issue beyond Section 148 is involved, the writ applicant is at liberty to file a fresh application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices are to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer is required to provide the assessees with the information and material relied upon within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) with prior approval is dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. After following the procedure under Section 148A, the Assessing Officer may issue a notice under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and other laws remain preserved. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any other issue beyond Section 148 is involved, the writ applicant is at liberty to file a fresh application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices are to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer is required to provide the assessees with the information and material relied upon within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) with prior approval is dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. After following the procedure under Section 148A, the Assessing Officer may issue a notice under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and other laws remain preserved. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any other issue beyond Section 148 is involved, the writ applicant is at liberty to file a fresh application.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices are to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer is required to provide the assessees with the information and material relied upon within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) with prior approval is dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. After following the procedure under Section 148A, the Assessing Officer may issue a notice under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and other laws remain preserved. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any other issue beyond Section 148 is involved, the writ applicant is at liberty to file a fresh application.
The High Court held that all the captioned writ applications were to be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148, which were the subject of writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These would be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, and assessees would have two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and subsequently issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were preserved. The High Court also clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh writ applications.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices are to be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer is required to provide the assessees with the information and material relied upon within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) with prior approval is dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. After following the procedure under Section 148A, the Assessing Officer may issue a notice under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and other laws remain preserved. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any other issue beyond Section 148 is involved, the writ applicant is at liberty to file a fresh application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.