M/S OMAXE HOUSING AND DEVELOPERS LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/20311/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110984202518 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, allowed the petition. The decision was based on the consensus between the parties that the petitioner would receive the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial precedent, the court will uphold that agreement and grant the consequential relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Omaxe Housing and Developers Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The petitioner sought relief against a notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The parties, the petitioner and the revenue, agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024) dated 10.09.2026? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that they should be granted the same relief as was provided in the aforementioned judgment, based on a consensus reached with the revenue. The judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case was relied upon. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case. No specific arguments or authorities were recorded for the revenue beyond this agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-20311-2025 (O&M) 120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20311-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.09.2026 M/s Omaxe Housing and Developers Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Kavita, Advocate for the respondent(s)-revenue. DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted through a judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP-15791-2024- Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. 2. In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in terms of Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra), resulting in quashing of the impugned notice dated 30.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 18.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.22 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →