Loading High Court cases…
6,400 orders from the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Most recent orders on record, from 2026.
The High Court held that the impugned order dated January 19, 2022, passed by the PCIT, was bad in law and unsustainable. The Court found that the PCIT did not apply the tests laid down in Circular No. 9/2015. The Court distinguished between Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which requires "sufficient cause," and Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which empowers the Board to admit claims after the statutory period to avoid genuine hardship. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2015, relied upon by the department itself, requires the authority to examine the correctness and genuineness of the income/loss declared and whether the case is one of genuine hardship. The Court found that the petitioner's explanation for the delay, stemming from the evolving legal position in similar cases, was a valid reason for seeking condonation. The Court quashed the PCIT's order and remitted the matter back to the PCIT to consider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim for refund.
The High Court has not provided a specific decision or reasoning for this particular writ petition. Instead, it has directed that the order for this case will be the same as the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 18800 of 2023. Therefore, the findings, reasoning, and operative directions for this case are contingent upon the decision in the aforementioned connected writ petition. Any pending miscellaneous applications have been disposed of.
The High Court did not decide the specific issues of this case independently. Instead, it directed that the order for CWP-18881-2023 be passed in accordance with the detailed judgment issued on the same date in CWP No. 18800 of 2023 (Rajbir Singh Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula and others). Consequently, the findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi of the present case are subsumed within the aforementioned detailed judgment. The operative directions for this petition would therefore be those stipulated in the judgment for CWP No. 18800 of 2023. No issue was expressly left undecided; rather, the decision was deferred to a related, more detailed judgment.
The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for the delay were correct and did not warrant interference. The explanation provided by the assessee accounted for the period until the counsel resumed office on 15.03.2017, but offered no substantiation for the subsequent nearly eleven-month period of alleged illness until the appeal was filed on 22.02.2018. No medical records or other supporting material were produced. The Court noted the assessee's own lack of cooperation at the assessment stage, which reflected on the assessee himself and not solely on the counsel. The reliance on Rafiq v. Munshi Lal was distinguished, as in that case, the party had done everything in their power, unlike the present situation where inaction and negligence were evident. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court, in its oral order, stated that the present writ petition (CWP-18814-2023) was being disposed of in terms of the detailed judgment of even date passed in CWP No. 18800 of 2023 - Rajbir Singh Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula and others. This implies that the outcome for Subhash Chand's petition mirrors that of Rajbir Singh's petition. The judgment does not provide the specifics of the decision in the related case or the reasoning behind it. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, ratio, and operative directions for this case are not recorded in this particular order, other than the reference to the other judgment.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 23.09.2026, decided that the present writ petition (CWP-18817-2023) would be governed by the detailed judgment passed on the same date in CWP No. 18800 of 2023, titled Rajbir Singh Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula and others. Consequently, no independent decision or reasoning on the specific facts and issues pertaining to Ravi Kumar Gupta's case is provided in this excerpt. The operative direction is to follow the decision in the connected case. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court has not provided a decision on the merits of the case in this specific order. Instead, it has directed that the order for this petition will be the same as the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 18800 of 2023 on the same date. This implies that the outcome and reasoning for Raj Kumar Gaba's petition are contingent upon the decision in the Rajbir Singh case. No specific findings, reasoning, or operative directions are provided for this petition independently. Any pending miscellaneous applications have been disposed of.
The High Court has not provided a specific finding or reasoning for this particular writ petition. Instead, it has directed that the order for this case is to be found in the detailed judgment of even date passed in CWP No. 18800 of 2023. Therefore, the specific holdings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for Sudha Pande's case are not detailed in this order. Any operative directions or relief granted would be as per the aforementioned connected judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its oral order, stated that the decision for this writ petition (CWP-18858-2023) would be based on the detailed judgment of even date passed in a connected writ petition, CWP No. 18800 of 2023, titled Rajbir Singh Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula and others. Consequently, no independent findings or reasoning specific to Rajni Kumar's case are recorded in this excerpt. The operative directions are to follow the decision in the connected case and to dispose of all pending miscellaneous applications.
The High Court has not provided a substantive decision or reasoning in this order. It merely states that the detailed judgment for this case is contained within the judgment of an associated writ petition, CWP No. 18800 of 2023. Consequently, no specific findings, ratio decidendi, or operative directions are discernible from this particular order. The court has also indicated that all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, have been disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 23.09.2026, decided that the present writ petition (CWP-18854-2023) would follow the detailed judgment of even date passed in CWP No. 18800 of 2023, Rajbir Singh Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula and others. Consequently, the High Court disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications in this case. The specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi pertaining to the issues raised by Satish Sharma are not elaborated in this particular order, as it defers to the judgment in the companion case. No specific relief granted or issue left undecided is recorded.
The High Court did not render any decision on the merits of the case. Instead, it directed that the order for this petition should be seen in the detailed judgment of even date passed in a connected writ petition, CWP No.18800 of 2023, titled Rajbir Singh Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula and others. Consequently, no specific findings were made, no reasoning was provided, and no ratio decidendi can be extracted from this order. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed another petition for the same relief, which had already been allowed on 22.09.2026. Consequently, the present petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also directed that any pending applications filed in this petition would also stand disposed of. No specific legal provisions were discussed or applied in reaching this decision, as the matter was disposed of on the petitioner's request for withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. The counsel stated that the respondent-council is no longer in operation and, therefore, requested permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to revive it if the need arises. The Court accepted this submission and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case. No specific findings were made on any substantive legal issues, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The Tribunal held that the present appeal is allowed in terms of the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court dated 26.02.2026 in ITA-517-2008, concerning M/s Vardhman Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another. The court noted that learned counsel for both the appellant-assessee and the respondent-revenue agreed that the appeal was covered in favour of the assessee by the aforementioned judgment. Consequently, the questions of law raised through this appeal were answered in favour of the appellant-assessee, and the appeal itself was allowed in terms of the law laid down in the Vardhman Textiles Ltd. case. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of in light of this consensus. The specific reasoning from the Vardhman Textiles Ltd. case was not detailed in this excerpt, but it formed the basis for the decision.
The Tribunal held that the parties had agreed that the present appeal is covered in favour of the appellant-assessee through the judgment of a Division Bench of the Court dated 26.02.2026 in ITA-517-2008, concerning M/s Vardhman Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another. Consequently, the questions of law raised in the present appeal were answered in favour of the appellant-assessee, and the appeal was allowed in terms of the law laid down in the Vardhman Textiles Ltd. case. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The specific findings or ratio decidendi from the Vardhman Textiles Ltd. case were not detailed in this judgment, but the principle applied is that if a prior Division Bench judgment on similar facts and issues is binding, and both parties agree to its applicability, the present appeal should follow that precedent.
The High Court permitted the appellant-revenue to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that the order under challenge is no longer in operation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the appellant-revenue to revive the appeal if the need arises. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, and no issues were left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.
The Tribunal (High Court) decided to allow 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, which also included the challenge to Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, any pending applications related to this petition were also disposed of. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's explicit request for withdrawal and liberty to refile. No adjudication on the merits of the case or the challenge to Section 147A occurred.
The High Court held that the impugned penalty order passed under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was liable to be set aside. The Court noted the admitted position that the petitioner was not granted a personal hearing despite seeking one. In light of this admission and in terms of Section 274 of the Act, which mandates granting an opportunity of being heard, the Court set aside the order. The respondent-Income Tax Department was granted liberty to pass a fresh reasoned order, but only after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in the above terms.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not decide the merits of the original petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the specified liberty.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, based on the consensus reached by the learned counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents, allowed the petition. The court directed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as had been 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 30.06.2025, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based entirely on the agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judgment of the same court, the court will grant that relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the issue in the present appeal was no longer res integra and stood concluded by its previous judgment in C.S. Atwal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana, dated 22.07.2015. In that case, the Court had examined identical Joint Development Agreements, the scope of Section 2(47)(ii), (v), and (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the requirements of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the nature of possession delivered, and the question as to whether the transaction gave rise to taxable capital gains. The Court found that the facts and issues involved in the present appeal were identical to those in C.S. Atwal. Therefore, no independent consideration was required, and the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
The High Court held that, in light of the consensus between the parties, 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). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 25.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the counsel for both the petitioner and the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judgment of the same court, the court will grant that relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, decided to allow the withdrawal of the petition. The reasoning provided is that the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition because the relief sought had already been granted in another petition, CWP-20110-2026, by an order dated 10.09.2026. The Tribunal accepted this request. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that all the substantial questions of law raised by the revenue had already been answered against the revenue in a recent judgment of the same Court dated September 10, 2026, in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The reasoning for the dismissal is based on the prior adjudication of the same legal issues by the High Court. The specific findings of the ITAT that were upheld by the High Court, and the detailed reasoning behind the Jyoti Sareen judgment, are not elaborated upon in this order, as it relies on the previous decision. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.