Here is an interesting judgment by Madras High court as under:

The short overview and key observations were as under:

1. Where the impugned grounds on which reassessment notice is issued turns on facts,HC cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction.

2. Where the petitioner-bank itself had made a disallowance of a certain amount under section 14A in respect of expenditure incurred on exempt income and reassessment notice is issued on grounds of assessee not adhering to section 14A read with Rule 8D in computing the disallowance resulting in income escaping assessment to the extent of less disallowance computed by petitioner bank, the matter turns heavily on facts as it is about quantum of disallowance.

3. The only remedy for grievances of petitioner-bank-assessee is reassessment notice under Section 148 of IT Act i.e., impugned notice be carried to its logical end in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. In the result, the impugned reassessment notice is neither bad calling for interference in writ jurisdiction (much less demanding to be a situation of being dislodged under writ jurisdiction) nor a notice which causes undue hardship having the writ petitioner aggrieved.

5. Ergo, captioned writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.