https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457280 The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that interference under Article 226/227 was premature while reassessment proceedings under section 147 remained pending. The court found the notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) did not, on their face, demonstrate a jurisdictional usurpation but raised disputed factual exercises of jurisdiction for statutory remedies. Given the settled distinction between jurisdictional error and an error within jurisdiction, the HC declined to intervene at this intermediate stage. en-us Thu, 02 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Aug 2025 10:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457280 The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that interference under Article 226/227 was premature while reassessment proceedings under section 147 remained pending. The court found the notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) did not, on their face, demonstrate a jurisdictional usurpation but raised disputed factual exercises of jurisdiction for statutory remedies. Given the settled distinction between jurisdictional error and an error within jurisdiction, the HC declined to intervene at this intermediate stage. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457280