RUCHI ARORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/33697/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01175121202413 December 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This liberty specifically included the right to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the new petition. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's submission and request for withdrawal with such liberty. No other issues were decided on merits as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vandana Yadav, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana, and another revenue authority. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, also challenging Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court granted this liberty.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, including the challenge to Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, which included challenging Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner requested this liberty from the court. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

236 236 236 236

IN T IN T IN T IN T RUCHI RUCHI RUCHI RUCHI AROR AROR AROR AROR INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M M for

DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB 1.

Le with liberty to also to challeng 2.

08.09 08.09 08.09 08.09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

RA RA RA RA

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER X OFFICER X OFFICER X OFFICER, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate, Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C r. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Co r the respondents. *** BAL AL BAL AL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral) earned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner to file a fresh one ge therein Section 147A of the In ismissed as withdrawn with liber

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye

AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-33697 33697 33697 33697-2024 2024 2024 2024 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 08.09. 08.09. 08.09. 08.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH , for the petitioner. Counsel with unsel, r seeks to withdraw this petition e on the same cause of action as ncome Tax Act, 1961. rty as prayed for. (DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No

n s VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.09 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 147A

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →