Loading High Court cases…
1,247 orders · Page 10 of 25
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer to quash the notice, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 18, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in the cited cases. No other grounds were decided.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated July 26, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the revenue that the issue was covered by the High Court's own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, the revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to overturn the aforementioned judgments. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties and disposed of the petition. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that since the re-assessment order, which was the basis for the penalty order, had already been quashed by the Court in a prior writ petition (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4181/2024), the penalty proceedings could not survive. The Court noted that the earlier writ petition had quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that it was issued by the Jurisdiction Assessing Authority (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Authority (FAO), citing relevant precedents. As the foundational assessment proceedings were invalidated, the consequential penalty order was also rendered unsustainable. Therefore, the penalty order dated September 27, 2024, was quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court held that the issue in the present writ petition was squarely covered by its earlier order in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14638/2022 and connected matters, passed on August 21, 2025. The earlier judgment had dealt with the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of TOLA and the introduction of the faceless assessment regime. The Court had considered arguments regarding time-barring of notices, proceedings to be dropped for valuations below Rs. 50,00,000/-, and the validity of notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) post-faceless regime. The High Court's earlier order, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal's case, concluded that the JAO would continue to have jurisdiction to proceed with and decide notices originally issued by them, provided they followed the new procedural requirements. The revenue's counsel agreed that the present case was covered by this earlier judgment. Consequently, the Court directed the revenue to examine each case relating to deemed notices under Section 148 in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Rajeev Bansal's case, considering limitations, valuations below Rs. 50,00,000/-, and other relevant paragraphs from the Supreme Court's judgment. The exercise was to be conducted expeditiously, and the decision conveyed to the assessee under the faceless regime. The contentions raised were rejected, and all petitions were disposed of.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the understanding that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which, according to the High Court's previous pronouncements in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., renders such a notice invalid. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court held that the delay in uploading Form 10B should have been condoned. The Court agreed with the petitioner that there was no allegation of lack of bona fide in uploading the form belatedly. It was evident that the Commissioner rejected the application in a perfunctory manner without considering that the accident of the CA firm's staff was a circumstance beyond control. The Court emphasized a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach to condonation applications, citing the Apex Court's decision in Esha Bhattacharjee. The Court found no lack of bona fide on the petitioner's part, stating that the delay was not deliberate and the petitioner should not suffer due to the professional's inaction. The Court also noted that an uncontroverted affidavit explaining the delay was filed. The High Court found support in judgments from its co-ordinate bench and the Bombay High Court, which advocated for an equitable, balancing, and judicious approach in such cases involving charitable trusts. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the impugned order was quashed and set aside, directing the respondent to allow the benefit of Sections 11 & 12.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated September 30, 2021, issued under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proposing a special audit for AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21, was issued without application of mind. While the revenue is entitled to look into six assessment years prior to the search year under Sections 153A/153C, this does not permit them to audit or reassess accounts for years when the company did not exist. Since the petitioner was incorporated in July 2017, there could be no accounts for the period prior to its incorporation. Consequently, the notice cannot stand and is quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that this notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which, in light of the judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., renders such a notice invalid. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. Furthermore, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment order dated March 30, 2025, was also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), and that this Court, in cases like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., had held such notices to be invalid. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 7, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding it invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This decision was based on the Court's prior rulings in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 13, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court granted the Revenue liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Supreme Court were to overturn the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court noted that the counsel for the petitioner stated that the petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case, and no specific findings or reasoning were provided beyond acknowledging the withdrawal request. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which, following the precedents of Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., renders the notice invalid. The Court also quashed and set aside the consequential assessment order dated March 30, 2025, as it could not be sustained when the underlying notice was invalid. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that this notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which, following the judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., renders such a notice bad and invalid. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. Furthermore, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment order dated March 29, 2025, was also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO is invalid. The Court granted the Revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 31, 2025, which was passed subsequent to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties for the future. No other grounds were decided on merits.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court followed its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO is bad in law. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 29, 2025, which was passed pursuant to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court, acknowledging the agreement between the parties, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO would be invalid. However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO is invalid. However, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court allowed the application for raising legal grounds and agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, following its own precedents in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the Revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Furthermore, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment order dated March 28, 2024, was also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that the notice was bad in law, as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the High Court's own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the principle laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the Revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the agreement between the parties and the existing High Court precedent, quashed and set aside the notices dated August 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court followed its own previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO under Section 148 are invalid. However, to account for potential future developments in the Apex Court, the revenue was granted liberty to revive the notices if the Supreme Court were to overturn the relevant High Court judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any reassessment order passed pursuant to these notices would also stand quashed and set aside. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and cited Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for quashing the notice. However, in light of the pending SLP against Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and the potential for the Apex Court to alter the legal position, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which is considered bad in law as per the precedents cited by the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the respondent's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and the potential for the Apex Court to interfere with the existing judgments. Consequently, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision in the SLP leads to a different outcome. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established law as laid down by the Rajasthan High Court in Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, acknowledging the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies case, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies, Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by its previous judgments, specifically referencing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer, quashing the notice. However, in light of the pending SLP against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court, in agreement with the petitioner's counsel and acknowledging the respondent's submissions, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which held that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently was also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated July 12, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This decision was based on the High Court's prior rulings in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices to be bad in law. Consequently, the assessment order dated May 25, 2023, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer to quash the notice, reserving the revenue's right to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. differed from the High Court's judgments. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court, in agreement with the petitioner's counsel and acknowledging the respondent's submissions, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the ground concerning the issuance of the notice by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by previous judgments of the High Court, specifically Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court held that the notice dated April 8, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad and not valid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding is based on the Court's previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the aforementioned judgments. Consequently, since the Section 148 notice was deemed invalid, the assessment orders dated March 31, 2023, and April 11, 2023, which were passed pursuant to this notice, were also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of with these directions, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the principle laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, in view of the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the precedent set in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to overturn the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner was covered by its own previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices issued by JAOs to be invalid. However, considering the pendency of an SLP before the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present but provided liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the existing legal position. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order were passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated May 3, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), which held that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to overturn these precedents in the pending SLP. The petitioner reserved its right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was bad in law, citing its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the legal position. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to the impugned notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the precedent set in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). The Court granted the revenue the liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad and not valid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding is based on the precedent set by this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). The Court quashed and set aside the notice. However, in view of the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the validity of the notices issued by JAOs. The petition was disposed of with this liberty, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), relying on its previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue the liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of with liberty as prayed, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for quashing the notice. However, in light of the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court noted the Revenue's submission that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment and that notice had been issued by the Apex Court. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner's prayer to quash the notice, while also granting the Revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated June 24, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), and that this issue was covered by the High Court's own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was a ground covered by previous judgments of the Rajasthan High Court in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, following the principle laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for quashing the notice. However, in light of the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision altered the current legal position. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order was passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the agreement between the parties that one of the grounds was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court, quashed and set aside the notices dated August 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the High Court's decision in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notices if the Apex Court were to set aside the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The court explicitly stated that all other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 19, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the precedent set in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also noted that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the impugned notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's contention that such a notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law, following its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the Revenue liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in case the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order were passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court, while acknowledging the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, agreed with the petitioner's contention that the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law. The Court followed its own precedent in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023. However, in view of the pending SLP before the Apex Court, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the principle laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. However, the court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO under Section 148 is invalid. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order were passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.