<?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 (9) TMI 1698 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464466</link>
    <description>A reassessment notice issued under section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the statutorily mandated Faceless Assessing Officer, was treated as jurisdictionally invalid. The Court followed its existing binding decision on the same point, noting that there was no stay and judicial discipline required adherence to that precedent. The notice and all consequential proceedings were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2025 20:27:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=861210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1698 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464466</link>
      <description>A reassessment notice issued under section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the statutorily mandated Faceless Assessing Officer, was treated as jurisdictionally invalid. The Court followed its existing binding decision on the same point, noting that there was no stay and judicial discipline required adherence to that precedent. The notice and all consequential proceedings were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>