https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773381 The Bombay HC stayed reassessment proceedings where notice under Section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer, violating Section 151A provisions. Following precedents in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., and Dennischarles John Das, the court granted complete stay on demand until appellate proceedings conclude. The court held adjustment of refund for AY 2024-25 against outstanding demand for AY 2017-18 as bad in law, directing respondents to reverse the adjustment and refund amount with interest by July 30, 2025. en-us Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jun 2025 08:29:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773381 The Bombay HC stayed reassessment proceedings where notice under Section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer, violating Section 151A provisions. Following precedents in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., and Dennischarles John Das, the court granted complete stay on demand until appellate proceedings conclude. The court held adjustment of refund for AY 2024-25 against outstanding demand for AY 2017-18 as bad in law, directing respondents to reverse the adjustment and refund amount with interest by July 30, 2025. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773381