<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (7) TMI 971 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755751</link>
    <description>HC held that notices issued under section 148 were illegal and invalid because Junior Assessing Officer (JAO) lacked jurisdiction where Section 151A and the Central Government notification require issuance by the Faceless Appeal Office (FAO). The court relied on its prior authority covering the same challenge to faceless assessment procedure and, noting the revenue&#039;s concession, allowed the petition and quashed the impugned notices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2025 16:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=760586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 971 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755751</link>
      <description>HC held that notices issued under section 148 were illegal and invalid because Junior Assessing Officer (JAO) lacked jurisdiction where Section 151A and the Central Government notification require issuance by the Faceless Appeal Office (FAO). The court relied on its prior authority covering the same challenge to faceless assessment procedure and, noting the revenue&#039;s concession, allowed the petition and quashed the impugned notices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>