Loading High Court cases…
477 orders · Page 7 of 10
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order dated December 30, 2019, for the assessment year 2018-2019, had been pending for approximately five years with no progress. The Court referred to Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which stipulates that Commissioners (Appeals) may, where possible, hear and decide appeals within one year from the end of the financial year in which the appeal is filed. While acknowledging the phrase "where it is possible," the Court emphasized the legislature's intent for timely disposal of appeals. Citing a previous order in a similar case (Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others), where directions were issued for the disposal of a decade-old pending appeal, the Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Appeals) to decide the petitioner's appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the petition was allowed in terms of the aforementioned judgment. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the consensus reached between the parties, referencing a prior judgment of the same court. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree that a case should be decided on the same lines as a previous binding precedent, the court will follow that precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with 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. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's request and the absence of any objection or recorded argument from the revenue. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the granted liberty. No specific finding was made on the merits of the challenge to Section 147A or any other aspect of the original petition.
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 No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 21.03.2024 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 parties to extend the relief granted in the precedent case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a binding precedent of the High Court concerning similar facts and issues, the court will grant the same relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court, based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition. The court found that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as had been granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 26.03.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement between the parties for parity of relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as has been granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Based on this consensus and in light of the precedent, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar relief has been granted to another assessee in a parallel writ petition based on agreed terms, the same relief should be extended to the present petitioner.
The High Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 (presumably the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax) to consider and decide the representations made by the petitioner (Annexures P-17, P-18, and P-19) expeditiously. The Court directed that these representations should be decided preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the rejection of the revised returns, focusing instead on the procedural aspect of ensuring the representations were addressed. No specific finding was given on the legality of the AO's action, as the matter was disposed of on the basis of the representations.
The High Court, in light of the consensus reached by the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition. The court noted that the parties had agreed 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). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 27.02.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings, if any, were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case involving similar circumstances and a similar notice under Section 148, the court should honor that consensus and grant the same relief, quashing the notice and proceedings.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court agreed with the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh (supra) and held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them otiose. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, and proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, were found to be contrary to the Act and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if advised. The specific notice dated 24.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) and consequential proceedings were set aside.
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 No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 29.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings that may have arisen therefrom. The reasoning is based on the agreement of counsel that the facts and circumstances warrant identical treatment to the petitioner as was given to the petitioner in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a precedent set by the same court in a similar matter, the court will grant the same relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court, based on the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 26.03.2024 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 learned counsel for the parties. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court, based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents (Income Tax Department), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 28.03.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as had been granted in a previous judgment of the same Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to apply the precedent of a prior judgment of the same court, the court will grant similar relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the Section 148 notice and consequential actions. No issue was left undecided.
The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition. The impugned notice dated 28.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The reasoning for this decision was based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, who agreed that the petitioner should benefit from the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and consequential proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court, in light of the consensus reached by the learned counsel for both parties and following its previous decision in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP-15791-2024), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to extend the relief granted in the precedent case. The principle established is that if parties agree, and a precedent exists for similar relief concerning Section 148 proceedings, the court will grant that relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.
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 No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 26.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The ratio of this decision is that where parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case, the court will grant that relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the petition was allowed. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 12.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the consensus between the parties, acknowledging that the petitioner's case warranted the same outcome as the precedent case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judgment, the court will grant that relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The Tribunal held that the order dated 30.06.2022 under Section 148A(d), the consequential notice dated 30.06.2022 under Section 148, and the show cause notice dated 10.03.2025 were barred by limitation. This decision was based on the concession made by the Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the Revenue, as recorded in paragraph 19(f) of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal. The concession stated that for all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, they would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the notices issued to the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2015-16 were not valid. The Tribunal allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Based on the consensus between the parties, the Court allowed the petition. The impugned notice dated 23.03.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is solely based 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 relief based on a prior judgment of the same court on a similar matter, the court will grant that relief. No issue was expressly left undecided. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court accepted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue). It was acknowledged that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 2 Crore and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the Court found the appeal to be not maintainable. The appeal was disposed of as not pressed, meaning no decision was made on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal accordingly. No issues were expressly left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue). The counsel fairly conceded that the tax effect in the present appeal is less than Rs. 2 Crore and the matter does not fall within any of the exceptions stipulated in Circular No. 09/2024 read with Circular No. 5/2024. Based on this concession, the Court accepted the submission that the appeal would no longer be maintainable. Therefore, the Court ordered that the appeal be disposed of as not pressed. No decision on the merits of the substantive tax dispute was made.
The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 28.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of counsel to follow the precedent set by this Court in Jyoti Sareen’s case dated 10.09.2026. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial pronouncement by the same court, the court will grant that relief to avoid multiplicity of litigation and ensure consistency. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential actions. No issue was expressly left undecided.
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 No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 27.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to the same relief granted in a prior, similar case, the court will grant that relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the application for dismissal of the appeal. The Court took the appeal on board and dismissed it as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the appellant's submission that Circulars No. 05/2024 and 09/2024 issued by the CBDT render appeals with a tax effect below two crores not maintainable. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowed the application for dismissal of the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant (revenue) sought dismissal of the appeal in view of Circulars No. 05/2024 and 09/2024 issued by the CBDT. The revenue's counsel submitted that these circulars mandate that no appeal where the tax effect is less than two crores is maintainable, and thus, the present appeal should be dismissed as not pressed. The Court found merit in this submission. Accordingly, the appeal was taken on board and dismissed as not pressed. No decision was made on the merits of the substantive tax dispute.
The High Court allowed the application for dismissal of the appeal. The Court accepted the revenue's submission that Circulars No. 05/2024 and 09/2024 issued by the CBDT mandate that appeals with a tax effect below two crores are not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was taken on board and dismissed as not pressed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original appeal, as the dismissal was based on the procedural grounds presented by the revenue concerning the tax effect and the applicability of the circulars. No specific tax effect amount for this appeal was recorded in the judgment.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowed the application for dismissal of the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel submitted that as per Circulars No. 05/2024 and 09/2024, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, no appeal where the tax effect is less than two crores is maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original appeal or the specific tax effect. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court, after perusing the record and hearing learned counsel for both parties, noted that the appeal has been pending since 28.05.2021, and there has been no progress in the proceedings. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent – Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals – to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court also directed that pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. The principle established is that courts can issue writs of Mandamus to ensure timely disposal of quasi-judicial proceedings when there is undue delay and lack of progress, provided the other party does not oppose such a direction.
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 No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 24.03.2024 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 mutual agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a prior judgment of the High Court on similar facts, the court will grant similar relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024) dated 10.09.2026. Based on the consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 21.03.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. Any consequential proceedings, if any, arising from this notice were also quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case, the court will grant that relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as had been granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 24.03.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to extend the benefit of the earlier judgment to the present petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to parity with a previous judgment, the court will grant similar relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.
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 No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 24.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings that may have arisen therefrom. The reasoning was based on the mutual agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to be bound by a prior judgment of the same court on similar facts, the court will grant similar relief.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It noted the concession made by the Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of the Revenue, as recorded in paragraph 19(f) of the judgment in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra), stating that for Assessment Year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall within the period prescribed under TOLA (Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020). The Court referred to paragraph 19(f) of the Rajeev Bansal judgment, which indicated that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 and consequential orders dated 26.05.2023 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be barred by limitation. Therefore, the Court held that the notice dated 27.07.2022 and the consequential order dated 26.05.2023 are hereby set aside.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice dated 27.07.2022 under Section 148 and the assessment order dated 21.03.2023. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal. The Court analyzed the time limits for issuing reassessment notices under the old and new provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the impact of the Time Limit Extension Order (TOLA). For the Assessment Year 2014-2015, the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 148, if it were to be issued within three years, would expire on 31.03.2018. If it were to be issued within six years, it would expire on 31.03.2021. However, considering the period of limitation surviving under TOLA, the time limit was extended to 30.06.2021. The notice in the present case was issued on 27.07.2022, which was beyond the extended period. Therefore, the notice and the consequent assessment order were held to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the discount offered by the assessee to distributors for prepaid services is not commission or brokerage under Section 194-H. This decision was based on a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case.
The High Court held that the assessment order was non est and not sustainable in law. Regarding the first issue, while the judgment does not explicitly quash the order based solely on the consultation with superior officers, it strongly implies that such actions, when not legally mandated for a specific section like 143(3), can lead to vitiation. The court found that the revenue's attempt to justify the order by mentioning it was made on March 31, 2024, in the demand notice was a 'flimsy attempt to cover up the mistake.' The court was satisfied that no order was actually made on March 31, 2024. On the second issue, the court found the assessment order to be time-barred. It noted that there was no date on the assessment order itself, and the e-filing portal showed no assessment made as of April 1, 2024, with the order appearing only on April 4, 2024. The revenue's claim that the order was made on March 31, 2024, was not substantiated by evidence, such as an email sent on that date. The court concluded that the judgment in Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed case would not apply. The court did not explicitly rule on the third limb of argument regarding natural justice, as the order was quashed on the grounds of limitation and procedural impropriety related to consultation. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the order of assessment. The writ petition was allowed.
The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen (supra). Consequently, the petition was allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 06.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, referencing the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a specific relief based on a prior judgment of the same court, that relief should be granted. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the application for dismissal of the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant (Revenue) relied on Circulars No. 05/2024 and 09/2024, which, according to the appellant, render appeals with a tax effect below two crores not maintainable. Based on these circulars and the reasons set out in the application, which were duly supported by an affidavit, the Court found the application to be valid. Consequently, the appeal was taken on board and dismissed as not pressed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court noted the submission by the respondent-Income Tax Department that the writ petition had become infructuous because the petitioner had been considered and the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2017-18 were closed on 21.02.2025. A copy of this order was placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute this submission. Therefore, considering that the subsequent events rendered the challenge to the notices and order moot, the High Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original challenge to the notices and order, as the matter was decided on the procedural development of the case.
The High Court allowed the application for dismissal of the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel submitted that as per Circulars No. 05/2024 and 09/2024, no appeal where the tax effect is less than two crores is maintainable. Consequently, the appellant requested that the present appeal be dismissed as not pressed. The Court found the reasons set out in the application, supported by an affidavit, to be valid. Accordingly, the appeal was taken on board and dismissed as not pressed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously decided similar issues in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same grounds raised by the present petitioner. The Co-ordinate Bench had granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if they were so advised. Following these precedents, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the earlier decisions, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and granting liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible under law. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent-Department. The court directed that the necessary actions, as stated by the revenue, would be completed within the stipulated period. Specifically, the court noted the department's submission that a corrigendum was issued for transferring the demand to the original PAN and that the transfer from Mumbai to Chandigarh would take time. The court accepted the assurance that the limitation period for filing appeals would commence from the date of PAN transfer and that the petitioner would be intimated immediately. No specific issue was left undecided; the decision was based on the departmental undertaking.
The High Court held that both parties were in agreement that the tax effect in the present appeal was below Rs. 2 Crore and did not fall within any of the exceptions outlined in the relevant Circulars. Consequently, in accordance with Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, read with Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, the appeal was disposed of as not pressed. The Court also granted liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application for restoration and decision on merits if any cause of action, dispute, or interest still survived. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cited cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning is based on the precedent established by the co-ordinate benches on the jurisdictional issue concerning the NFAC's exclusive power as per the CBDT circular. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the aforementioned judgments, implying that the impugned notice and order are set aside, with the revenue having the option to re-initiate proceedings correctly. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated March 20, 2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a precedent set by the court in a similar matter, the court will grant the same relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 24.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a precedent set by a coordinate bench of the same High Court, the court will grant the same relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as had been granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 28.03.2023, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, were quashed. The court also ordered that all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a precedent set by a coordinate bench of the same High Court, the court will grant similar relief.
The High Court, upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties, noted their agreement that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 2 Crore and the matter did not fall under any exceptions. In accordance with Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, the Court ordered that the appeal as well as the cross-objections be disposed of as not pressed. No decision was made on the merits of the appeal or the cross-objections. The operative direction was to dispose of the matter as not pressed.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate benches. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, which implies quashing the impugned notice and order, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if permissible under law. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the appeal should be disposed of as not pressed. This decision was based on the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties that the tax effect in the present appeal filed by the Revenue is less than Rs. 2 Crore. The Court explicitly referred to Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 read with Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 as the basis for this disposal. The operative direction was that the appeal be disposed of accordingly. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was decided on a procedural ground related to the tax effect threshold for appeals.