Loading High Court cases…
474 orders · Page 6 of 10
The Tribunal held that the impugned notice dated 29.08.2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in the two coordinate benches of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, namely Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. The Court found that the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these judgments. Consequently, the notice was quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the reasoning that the notice was issued contrary to the notification dated 29.03.2022, which mandated that such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment process. The Court followed its own previous decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's and Jasjit Singh's cases, which had established this principle. The ratio decidendi is that a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the notification mandating faceless assessments is invalid. The Court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
The High Court disposed of the petition in the same terms as the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. In those cited cases, writ petitions involving similar issues were allowed, and liberty was granted to the respondents (revenue) to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. This implies that the impugned notice was found to be procedurally flawed, but the revenue was given an opportunity to re-issue a valid notice if they chose to do so. The specific reasoning for allowing the previous petitions, which is being applied here, likely pertains to the incorrect issuance of the Section 148 notice by the jurisdictional AO instead of the NFAC.
The High Court disposed of the petition in the same terms as the judgment in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. In those cited cases, the writ petitions involving similar issues were allowed, and liberty was granted to the respondents to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Therefore, the operative direction is to allow the petitioner to pursue the remedies as per the law, with the respondents having the option to re-initiate proceedings following the correct procedure. No specific finding on the validity of the notice itself was recorded, but the procedural defect led to the disposal in line with previous judgments.
The Tribunal held that the shares of M/s Vardhman Polytex Ltd. were purchased for investment and not for trading, disallowing the interest expense. However, the High Court found that the appellant had been selling shares of M/s Vardhman Polytex Ltd. at different intervals, indicating a trading intent.
The High Court accepted the appellant's submission that the record could not be traced. Consequently, the Court dismissed the present appeal as not pressed at this stage. However, liberty was granted to the appellant to file an application for the revival of this appeal, provided they submit the record of the case along with the application. Any pending applications were also disposed of. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original appeal.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the primary ground of challenge by the petitioner was that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible in view of the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment. The respondents did not dispute this fact and conceded that the case was covered by two previous judgments of the same Court: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024, and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. Therefore, following the precedent set by these judgments, the petition was allowed.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the Court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. These judgments established that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be issued through the faceless assessment process as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. The Court found that the revenue did not dispute this position. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed, with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated March 26, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in the previously cited judgments of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. The Court found that the notification dated March 29, 2022, requiring faceless assessment for such notices, had not been complied with. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law, implying they could issue a fresh notice following the prescribed faceless assessment procedure. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued contrary to a mandatory procedural notification, such as the one mandating faceless assessment, is liable to be quashed.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 30.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the precedent set by two coordinate benches of the same High Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. The court found that the respondents' counsel did not dispute that these judgments applied to the present case. Therefore, in accordance with the law laid down in those judgments, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 30.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which were relied upon by the petitioner. The Court found that the notification dated 29.03.2022, mandating faceless assessment, was applicable. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the impugned notice dated March 28, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the reasoning that the notification dated March 29, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, mandates that such notices be issued through faceless assessment. The Tribunal acknowledged that the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's contention and conceded that the case was covered by previous judgments of the Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned notice, with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the appellant's counsel, Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, acting on specific instructions, sought to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on the fact that the tax effect involved was under Rs. 2 crores, aligning with the instructions derived from Circular No. 9 of 2024 issued by the CBDT. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal itself was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh decided to dismiss the petition as withdrawn. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted the liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court's decision was based on the oral request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No findings were made on the merits of the case, as the petition was withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition with liberty as prayed for.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Court's reasoning was based on the fact that the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's contention that the case was covered by the prior judgments of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. These judgments, as per the petitioner's reliance, established that notices under Section 148 could only be issued via faceless assessment as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. The court found that the respondent did not dispute that these precedents covered the present case in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in these terms.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the precedent established in two prior judgments of the Court: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. In these cases, the Court had ruled that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be issued through the faceless assessment mechanism as per the relevant notification. The reasoning was that the notification mandated a specific procedure for issuing such notices, and deviation from it rendered the notice void. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notice. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the Court: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India. The Court found that the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these precedents. Consequently, the notice was quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in these terms.
The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Based on this consensus, the petition was allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 30.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a precedent being applicable, the court will follow it to grant similar relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Based on the consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed in terms of the Jyoti Sareen case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 15.02.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings, if any, were quashed. The Court also disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to parity with a previous judgment on similar facts and legal issues, the court will grant the same relief. No specific issue was left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction. It noted from the reply filed by the Income Tax Officer that the petitioner had not submitted any application to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner for registration under Section 12A for the purpose of availing exemption under Sections 11 and 12 under the new Permanent Account Number (PAN) AAIAD4798D. The Court found that, in view of the statutory provisions, moving such an application is a requirement. Therefore, the Court directed that if the petitioner submits an appropriate application to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner for registration under Section 12A for the purpose of availing exemption under Sections 11 and 12 under the new PAN AAIAD4798D within one week from the date of the order, the respondents shall decide the said application by 15.06.2025. The issue of whether registration can be transferred from one PAN to another was implicitly addressed by directing a fresh application, indicating that a direct transfer was not permissible.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) that the tax effect involved in the appeal was under Rs.2 crores. Consequently, in line with Circular No. 9 of 2024 issued by the CBDT, the appellant had received specific instructions to withdraw the appeal. The Court found no reason to dissent from this submission and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court, with the consent of both parties, disposed of the appeal as infructuous due to the settlement proceedings under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the appellant to file an application if any grievance subsists.
The High Court allowed the application for disposal of the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as infructuous due to the settlement proceedings under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the appellant submitted specific instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being under Rs.2 crores, referencing Circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were decided on merits, and no part of the ITAT's order was affirmed or set aside.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, acknowledging the submission by the appellant's counsel, noted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was under Rs. 2 crores. Consequently, the appellant had specific instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated September 17, 2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT. Based on this instruction, the Court ordered the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning provided was based on the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) who stated that he had specific instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being under Rs. 2 crores, in compliance with CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were left undecided as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court noted the statement made by the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. It was stated that the DCIT (International Taxation), by an order dated 25.04.2025, had made the rectification sought by the petitioner. As a result, Rs.15,34,890/- was transferred online to CPC, Bengaluru. CPC was instructed to credit this amount to the petitioner's bank account, subject to the petitioner providing the necessary documentation within three weeks from the date of the order. In light of this submission, the Court found no further orders to be necessary and disposed of the petition. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the respondent Income Tax authorities again if he found any discrepancy in the amount actually refunded.
The High Court held that the case of the petitioner was covered by the law laid down in the two previous judgments of the Court, namely *Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others* and *Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others*. Consequently, the impugned notice dated March 31, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in the above terms. No specific issue was left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court reiterated its previous findings in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, holding that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, and Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings, initiated without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B, were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The present notice dated 22.03.2025 under Section 148 and consequential proceedings were set aside.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court reiterated its agreement with the view taken by a co-ordinate bench in Jasjit Singh (supra), holding that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees, and that instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings, when initiated without conducting faceless assessment as per Section 144B, were held to be contrary to the Act. The specific notices and orders challenged in the cited cases were set aside for want of jurisdiction. Applying this ratio mutatis mutandis to the present case, the High Court set aside the notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings. The respondents were granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The operative direction was to set aside the notice and consequential proceedings.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B(7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their satisfaction and convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions and aid their implementation. Consequently, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act, 1961, and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. The specific notice dated 22.03.2025 and consequential proceedings were set aside.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the Court permitted the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The reasoning for this decision is not detailed beyond granting the petitioner's request. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty.
The High Court allowed the petition. It was held that the case of the petitioner was covered by the law laid down in the two previous judgments of the same court, namely *Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India* and *Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India*. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The High Court allowed the petition. It was held that the impugned notice dated 30.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the principle laid down in the High Court's own previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning was that the notice, issued in the context of a faceless assessment, was not issued by the competent authority as per the established procedure. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 must adhere to the procedural requirements, especially when a faceless assessment scheme is in operation. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was liable to be quashed. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning was that the notice was issued in contravention of the established procedure for faceless assessments as per the notification dated March 29, 2022. The Court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case had already decided the same issue in favour of the assessees. The Court found that the present writ petition was squarely covered by these previous judgments. The Court directed that the revenue should follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, granting liberty to the revenue to proceed as advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the petition. It was held that the case of the petitioner was covered by the law laid down in the two previous judgments of the Court, namely *Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others* and *Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others*. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The primary reasoning was based on the precedent established by the co-ordinate benches of the High Court regarding the invalidity of notices issued by unauthorized officers under the faceless assessment regime.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the notice dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings. The Court relied on the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), as recorded in paragraph 19(f) of that judgment. This concession stated that for assessment years where the income has escaped assessment, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the TOLA Act. Specifically for Assessment Year 2015-2016, the notice dated 29.07.2022 was issued without following the procedure as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. Therefore, the notice and consequential proceedings were held to be barred by limitation.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated March 28, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down by two coordinate benches of the same Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. These judgments established that notices under Section 148 should be issued through the faceless assessment mechanism as per the notification dated March 29, 2022. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondent was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This liberty specifically included the right to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court granted the prayer as made by the petitioner. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted. No specific finding was made on the merits of the challenge to Section 147A, as the petition was withdrawn.
The High Court held that based on the consensus between the petitioner and the respondents, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the petition was allowed. The specific relief granted was the quashing of the impugned notice dated 29.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judgment of the same court, the court will grant that relief. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning is based on the established precedent of the Co-ordinate Bench on the identical issue. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and granting liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, co-ordinate benches had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue of jurisdiction concerning Section 148 notices. The reasoning was based on the principle that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction as per the relevant CBDT circular. The operative direction granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court noted that the petitioner challenged the notice under Section 148, the assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B, and consequential actions for AY 2019-2020, citing the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The Court observed that a co-ordinate bench had previously allowed writ petitions on similar issues in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure. Since an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority in the present case, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to decide the pending appeal in accordance with the precedents.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, agreeing that the assessee was rightly entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The court relied on previous decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as had been granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 22.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a prior judgment of the same court on similar facts and issues, the court will grant similar relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the ITAT's decision. The court relied on its own prior judgment in a similar case, which had attained finality.
The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the petition was allowed in terms of the aforementioned judgment. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the consensus reached between the parties, referencing a prior judgment of the same court. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree that a case should be decided on the same lines as a previous binding precedent, the court will follow that precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.