<?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>2025 (2) TMI 547 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766001</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging an assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B for lack of proper approval under section 151. The court found that the proposal for scrutiny contained duly recorded reasons and both Range Head and CIT/PCIT had approved the notice under section 148, constituting valid approval under section 151. The court noted that faceless assessment procedures were properly followed with competent authority approvals at each stage. Finding no jurisdictional error, the court declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to pursue alternative appellate remedies, with the period spent in writ proceedings eligible for condonation of delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2025 08:26:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=797683" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 547 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766001</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging an assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B for lack of proper approval under section 151. The court found that the proposal for scrutiny contained duly recorded reasons and both Range Head and CIT/PCIT had approved the notice under section 148, constituting valid approval under section 151. The court noted that faceless assessment procedures were properly followed with competent authority approvals at each stage. Finding no jurisdictional error, the court declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to pursue alternative appellate remedies, with the period spent in writ proceedings eligible for condonation of delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>