Loading High Court cases…
662 orders · Page 11 of 14
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the separate writ petition (CWP-11926-2026) that had been filed to challenge the assessment order dated 27.03.2026. The court did not delve into the merits of the original petition or the assessment order, as the decision was based on the petitioner's request for withdrawal due to a subsequent development. No specific issues regarding income tax law were decided.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action and to challenge the order dated 30.03.2026 passed under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court explicitly clarified that by granting this liberty, it had neither commented on the merits nor on the maintainability or entertainability of any remedy the petitioner might invoke in the fresh petition. The decision was based solely on the petitioner's submission and request for withdrawal.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and dispatched prior to 01.04.2021, were not required to be preceded by any notice under Section 148A, as Section 148A was prospectively introduced and came into effect on or after 01.04.2021. Consequently, such notices would continue to be governed by the unamended provisions. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, which, while allowing certain benefits of the new provisions to notices issued on or after 1st April 2021, did not mandate the Section 148A procedure for notices issued before that date. The court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned notice. However, it granted the petitioner liberty to file a written response to the notice, after which the Assessing Officer would proceed with the assessment in accordance with law. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to respond to the notice.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and dispatched prior to April 1, 2021, are not required to be preceded by a notice under Section 148A. This is because Section 148A was prospectively introduced and effective from April 1, 2021. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, which held that for notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, the new provisions would apply. However, for notices issued prior to that date, the unamended provisions would govern. The Court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned notice but granted the petitioner liberty to file a written response, after which the Assessing Officer would proceed with the assessment in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that the applicability of Section 148A is prospective, and notices issued before its effective date are governed by the old law.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and dispatched prior to 01.04.2021, were not required to be preceded by a notice under Section 148A. This is because Section 148A came into effect prospectively from 01.04.2021. Therefore, such notices would continue to be governed by the unamended provisions. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, which held that the new provisions of Section 148A would apply to notices issued on or after 1st April 2021. However, for notices issued prior to 01.04.2021, the Court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned notice. The petitioner was granted liberty to file its written response to the notice, after which the Assessing Officer was to proceed with the assessment in accordance with law.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and dispatched prior to April 1, 2021, were not required to be preceded by a notice under Section 148A. This is because Section 148A was prospectively introduced and came into effect on or after April 1, 2021. Therefore, such notices are governed by the unamended provisions. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, which clarified that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 before April 1, 2021, would continue to be governed by the old provisions. However, the Court also noted that the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal, as a one-time measure for notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, had directed that such notices be deemed to be show-cause notices under Section 148A and allowed assessees to respond. In the present case, since the notice was issued prior to April 1, 2021, the Court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned notice but granted the petitioner liberty to file a written response, after which the Assessing Officer would proceed with the assessment.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the revenue conceded that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year in question, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617. This concession satisfied the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice, in terms of the procedure laid down under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all possible pleas and defenses available to them during these proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the petition based on the concession made by the revenue. The revenue conceded that the impugned notices dated March 31, 2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after April 1, 2021, for the respective assessment years, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act. This concession was made in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617. The Court directed the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of these notices, in terms of the procedure laid down under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all possible pleas and defenses available to it during these proceedings. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the revenue's concession, based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, was acceptable. The Court directed that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, issued for assessment year 2014-15 and dispatched on or after 01.04.2021, be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was resolved by the concession and subsequent directions.
The High Court held that the revenue's concession, made in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, was satisfactory. The impugned notice dated 29.06.2021, issued for the assessment year 2014-15 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was to be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b), following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
The High Court noted the concession made by the learned counsel for the revenue. The revenue agreed that in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2013-14, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. This concession satisfied the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner was also granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No issue was left undecided.
The High Court held that the revenue's concession, based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, was satisfactory to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the impugned notice, treating it as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and to follow the procedure laid down therein. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during the subsequent proceedings. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was resolved through the revenue's concession and the court's consequential directions.
The High Court held that the revenue conceded that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2014-15, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. This concession was made in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617. The concession satisfied the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice, in terms of the procedure laid down under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all possible pleas and defenses available to it during these proceedings. No issue was left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the petition based on the concession made by the revenue. The revenue conceded that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for assessment year 2014-15, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Court directed the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during the subsequent proceedings. No specific issue was left undecided; the matter was resolved by procedural direction.
The High Court held that the revenue's concession, agreeing to treat the impugned notice dated 24.06.2021, issued for assessment year 2013-14 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, was in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Court found this concession satisfactory to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the laid-down procedure. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No other issues were decided on merits.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the revenue conceded that in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2014-15, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act. This concession satisfied the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the aforementioned notices, in terms of the procedure laid down under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was also granted liberty to raise all possible pleas/defences available to it in the course of these proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court accepted the concession made by the revenue. It was held that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2013-14, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during the proceedings. No issue was left undecided.
The High Court held that the revenue's concession, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, was acceptable. The impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2014-15, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was to be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No specific issue was left undecided.
The High Court decided to allow the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The reasoning for this decision is based on the petitioner's counsel's submission and the court's discretion in granting such liberty. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.
The High Court 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 petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the subsequent petition. The reasoning for this decision is not elaborated upon, other than the explicit granting of the prayer made by the petitioner's counsel. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.
The High Court decided to allow the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. 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 reasoning was based on the oral request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not decide the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted.
The High Court 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 petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court's reasoning was based on the petitioner's request for withdrawal with specific liberty. No decision was made on the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the proposed fresh petition. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the specified liberty.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji, considered the oral request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Crucially, the petitioner also sought the liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The Court, after considering the request, has dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The Court has granted the liberty as prayed for by the petitioner. Therefore, the operative direction is the dismissal of the present petition as withdrawn, with the specified liberty granted to the petitioner.
The High Court 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 petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the subsequent petition. The court did not decide any substantive issue related to the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the specified liberty.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition concerning the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted the liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the subsequent petition. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the specified liberty.
The High Court noted that there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Civil Writ Petition in default. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the fresh petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the specified liberty.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Crucially, this liberty explicitly included the right to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the new petition. The court did not decide on the merits of any issue related to the original petition or Section 147A. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the specified liberty.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This fresh petition would also have the liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's decision was based solely on the petitioner's request for withdrawal and the grant of liberty. No decision was made on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted.
The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the Civil Writ Petition (CWP) No. 11269 of 2026. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to avail his statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to challenge the Assessment Order dated March 11, 2026 (Annexure P-13). The High Court explicitly clarified that by granting this liberty, it had neither commented on the merits of the case nor on the maintainability or entertainability of the remedy that the petitioner might invoke. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted.
The High Court decided to allow the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with the specified liberty.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The Court did not decide any substantive issue on the merits of the case, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This fresh petition would also have the liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning for this decision is based on the petitioner's explicit request and the court's discretion to grant such liberty. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction is the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with liberty granted.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This liberty specifically includes the right to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The operative direction is the dismissal of the present petition as withdrawn with the aforementioned liberty. The court did not decide on the merits of any issue related to the Income Tax Act or the assessment proceedings.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. No decision was made on the merits of any substantive issue.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. The specific reason for filing the fresh petition was to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The operative direction was to dismiss the current petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted. The court did not decide on the merits of any challenge to Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the petition was withdrawn.
The Tribunal (High Court) allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The reasoning for this decision is based on the petitioner's request and the court's discretion to permit withdrawal with such liberty. The operative direction is the dismissal of the present petition as withdrawn with the aforementioned liberties. No specific findings were made on the merits of any tax dispute, as the petition was withdrawn.
The Tribunal, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji, allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, with the specific right to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning for this decision is not detailed, but it appears to be based on the petitioner's request and the court's discretion in such matters. The operative direction is the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with the granted liberty. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as a consequence. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the case, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on any substantive legal issue, as the matter was disposed of on a procedural request.