V V INTERNATIONAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29630/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01159400202514 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others), based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned notice dated 10.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The reasoning is based on the agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to the same relief as granted in a prior binding precedent, the court will grant that relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, V.V. International, through its partner Mr. Surjit Kumar, filed a writ petition (CWP-29630-2025) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jalandhar. The petitioner sought relief against a notice dated 10.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent agreement between the parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others)? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee (Petitioner): The petitioner argued that they should receive the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, citing the consensus between the parties. No specific authorities or precedents were named by the petitioner's counsel in the judgment. Revenue (Respondent): The revenue, through its Sr. Standing Counsel, agreed with the petitioner that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific authorities or precedents were named by the revenue's counsel in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-29630-2025 (O&M) 178 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-29630-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.09.2026 V.V. International through Mr. Surjit Kumar (Partner) ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jalandhar ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr.Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel 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 10.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 14.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.22 12:59 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →