Loading High Court cases…
1,247 orders · Page 12 of 25
The High Court, in agreement with the respondent's counsel, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by the Court's previous judgments. Specifically, the Court noted that the notice dated April 11, 2023, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Following its own decisions in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., the Court held that such a notice would be invalid. The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 11, 2023. Liberty was granted to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to alter the legal position established in the aforementioned cases. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties for future stages. 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 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 previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, as well as the Bombay High Court's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer to quash the notice. However, in view of the pending SLP before 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 Court also stated that if any re-assessment order were passed, it 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 acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner, concerning the issuance of the notice by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was covered by its own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, as well as the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. Crucially, the court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in the event that 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 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 April 21, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the established precedent in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that a Section 148 notice issued by a JAO, rather than an FAO, is invalid. The Court granted the revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to set aside 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. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court held that the notice dated April 13, 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 Court's own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court quashed and set aside the notice. However, acknowledging the pendency of an SLP before the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the validity of the notices in the cited cases. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order is passed, it will 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 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 previous judgments, specifically Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The court accepted the Revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice in the event the Apex Court's decision in the SLP filed against Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (or related cases) altered the existing legal position. 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 High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 17, 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 Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court noted the Revenue's submission that an SLP was pending against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment and granted the petitioner's prayer for quashing the notice, while also granting liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the precedents. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 18, 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 if any re-assessment order was passed, it 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 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice, having been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was invalid, following the precedents set in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. However, 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 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 Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's 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 was held to be bad in law by this Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the 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 this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court, acknowledging that the ground raised by the petitioner was covered by its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (or related judgments) were to alter the prevailing legal position. The Court also stated that any re-assessment 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 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's contention 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 its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the principle established in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, acknowledging the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the prevailing 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 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 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 to quash 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 aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any reassessment 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 as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), following its own precedents 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 Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. 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's 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 was held to be bad in law by this Court in Shree Cement Limited, following 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 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 petition was 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, concerning the issuance of the notice by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was covered by its own previous 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 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 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, 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 quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's 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 was held to be bad in law in the case of Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, acknowledging that the revenue had filed an 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 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 other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 17, 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 own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding such notices issued by a JAO to be invalid. While the Revenue agreed with this position, it sought liberty to revive the notice should the Supreme Court overturn the relevant precedents (Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited). The Court granted this liberty. 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, 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 followed its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO 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. Any re-assessment 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 High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's 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 was held to be bad in law. This finding was supported by previous judgments of the High Court in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the pending SLPs concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited differed from the High Court's ruling. 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, acknowledging the revenue's concession and the existing High Court judgments (Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer) that held notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs to be invalid, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court granted the liberty sought by the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the SLP filed against Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (and related cases) alters the current legal position. The Court also stated that any re-assessment 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, acknowledging the agreement between the parties that one of the grounds was covered by existing High Court judgments, decided to quash and set aside the notice dated April 24, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Act. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by this Court in Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO is bad in law and invalid. The Tribunal granted the petitioner's prayer for the present, quashing the notice. However, it also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice 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 Tribunal 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 did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the liberty granted to the Revenue implies a potential future challenge.
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's contention that the notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was invalid, citing precedents from Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the Revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to alter the position in the aforementioned cases. 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 Tribunal 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 previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, in light of the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Revenue was granted liberty 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 Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 19, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the established position of law as laid down in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. The Court granted the revenue's request for 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 pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the liberty granted to the revenue implies a potential future challenge to the current order.
The High Court, in agreement with the respondent's submission that the ground raised was covered by existing judgments, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue 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. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the impugned notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, along with any pending applications.
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 precedent of this Court 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 the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, acknowledging 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 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 other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the Bombay High Court's ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed was also quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 8, 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 JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. The Court granted the Revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to set aside the aforementioned judgments. Consequently, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment orders dated March 31, 2023, and April 11, 2023, and the penalty order dated September 25, 2023, were also quashed and set aside as they could not be sustained. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court, acknowledging the respondent's concession and the existing High Court judgments (Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer) which held notices issued by JAOs as invalid, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 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 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 ratio decidendi is that a notice under Section 148 issued by a JAO, in the context of the prevailing High Court pronouncements, is invalid, subject to potential future intervention by the Apex Court.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on the established precedent of this Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed the rulings in 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, acknowledging the pendency of an SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case before the Apex Court, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Supreme Court were to alter the position of law established in the cited judgments. The Court also stated that any reassessment 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 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 Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of the High Court in cases like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to overturn the aforementioned judgments. 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 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was bad and not valid, following its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on 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 stated that if any re-assessment order is passed, it will also stand quashed and set aside. All pending applications were disposed of, and 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 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. The court also noted the pendency of an SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case before the Apex Court. Consequently, the court granted the revenue liberty 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 kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated June 27, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on the High Court's established position in cases like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to overturn these precedents in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The petitioner reserved its right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The Court also noted that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed 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.
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 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'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), relying on its own previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, acknowledging that the Revenue had filed an SLP against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment and notice had been issued, 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 Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court kept 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 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 judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which was based on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue the liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court, in its pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited, were to interfere with these 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, acknowledging that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by its own prior judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court accepted the respondent's submission that while the notice was bad in law as per existing precedents, the revenue should be granted liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to overturn these precedents in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court also stated 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 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 Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 21, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of this Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed 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, acknowledging the pending SLP in the Apex Court regarding Hexaware Technologies Ltd., the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision alters the position of law established in the cited cases. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 10, 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 judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, as well as the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that such notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. The Court granted the liberty sought by the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. 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 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's submission 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 petitioner's prayer for relief. However, acknowledging the pendency of an SLP before 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 aforementioned judgments. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently was also to stand quashed and set aside. No other grounds were decided.
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, following its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which in turn relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by JAOs are 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 High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 11, 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), following its own precedents in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer. The Court also noted the revenue's submission regarding the SLP filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment and granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision altered the established legal position. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of both parties were kept open. Any reassessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.
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 followed its previous decisions in 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 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 quashed 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 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.