BALVESH NATH KHANNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9718/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01054383202510 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its judgment dated 10.09.2026, did not provide a specific ruling on the merits of the case presented by the petitioner, Balvesh Nath Khanna. Instead, the court indicated that the order for this writ petition would be found in a detailed judgment of even date passed in a connected case, CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi applicable to the petitioner's case are not discernible from this excerpt. The operative directions, if any, are also not detailed here, as the decision is contingent on the aforementioned connected judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided; rather, the decision was deferred to another judgment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Balvesh Nath Khanna, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Faridabad, and others. The judgment does not specify the assessment year(s) or the specific order or action under challenge. The amount in dispute is also not recorded. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition and the reservation of the order on 08.09.2026, with the decision being pronounced on 10.09.2026. The High Court referred to a detailed judgment of even date passed in a connected case, CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others.

What were the issues?

The judgment does not explicitly frame the questions of law or mixed law and fact that the Tribunal had to decide. Therefore, the specific issues before the court are not recorded. Similarly, the contentions of both the assessee (petitioner) and the revenue (respondents) are not detailed in this excerpt. No specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, circulars, or precedents were mentioned as being relied upon by either party in this judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9718-2025 (O&M) Reserved on :08.09.2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 BALVESH NATH KHANNA ..... Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 FARIDABAD AND OTHERS ..... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present : Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel and Ms. Nikita Garg, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. 1. For order see the detailed judgment of even date passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. 2. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE 10.09.2026 (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) Jyoti 1

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.16 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →