Loading High Court cases…
662 orders · Page 10 of 14
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered by the judgment dated 03.10.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in ITA-73-2024, which involved the same appellant and respondent. The reasoning was based on the fair admission by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal was indeed covered by the earlier decision. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgment. The ratio decidendi is that appeals that are factually and legally identical to a previously decided case by a co-ordinate bench should be disposed of in line with that precedent, promoting judicial efficiency and consistency. No specific issues were decided on merits in this appeal; it was disposed of based on concession.
The High Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order. Instead, the court accepted the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents assured the court that the petitioner's appeal would be decided within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the High Court's order. This assurance satisfied the petitioner's counsel. Therefore, the High Court disposed of the writ petition based on this undertaking, without delving into the substantive issues of the original appeal.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The withdrawal was granted with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the notice received under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, has disposed of the writ petition filed by S B Realtech Private Limited. The court has directed that the decision in this case will be in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in a connected matter, CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings and reasoning pertaining to S B Realtech Private Limited's petition are not elaborated upon in this excerpt. The operative directions, if any, would be found in the aforementioned detailed judgment. Any pending miscellaneous applications associated with this petition have also been disposed of.
The High Court held that the adjustment made by the respondent-revenue through the impugned order dated 04.11.2024, under Section 245 of the Act, could not be sustained. This was because the adjustment was made in contravention of the stay order dated 24.10.2024, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurugram. The stay order had been allowed to attain finality by the respondents and was also uploaded on the ITBA Portal. The Court reasoned that the refund of Rs.19.10 crores for assessment year 2024-25 should not have been adjusted against the demand of Rs.20.39 crores for assessment year 2022-23, as this directly violated the interim stay. The Court directed that the adjusted amount be refunded forthwith to the petitioner, along with applicable interest, in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court has not provided a specific decision or reasoning for CWP-28298-2024 in this excerpt. 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.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This implies that the outcome and reasoning for Yogesh Kumar Goel's petition are identical to those in the Jyoti Sareen case. The judgment also notes the disposal of all pending miscellaneous applications.
The High Court, in light of the consensus reached by the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, allowed the petition. The Court ordered the quashing of the impugned notice dated 31.03.2022, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The operative direction was to grant the relief sought by the petitioner, effectively nullifying the tax proceedings initiated by the impugned notice. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court has not provided a specific decision or reasoning for this particular writ petition (CWP-11941-2025) within this excerpt. Instead, it has directed that the order for this case will be identical to the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the findings, reasoning, ratio decidendi, and operative directions for Mukesh Goel's petition are contingent upon the outcome of the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific issues were decided on merits in this excerpt, and no operative directions were issued independently.
The High Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. This was based on the submission made by the respondent-revenue that the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 was a non-speaking order. The revenue undertook to withdraw this order and pass a fresh one after considering the petitioner's objections. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh transfer order in accordance with law. Crucially, the Court directed that before passing the fresh transfer order, the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of personal hearing. The Court did not decide on the merits of the transfer itself, only on the procedural aspect of the impugned order being non-speaking and the subsequent proposed action by the revenue.
The High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal, allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court's decision was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn. Crucially, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the liberty extended to challenging Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the subsequent petition. No decision was made on the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A, as the matter was disposed of on the procedural aspect of withdrawal.
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 on the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the specified liberties.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal, 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. Crucially, the liberty also extended to challenging Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the subsequent petition. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. No decision was made on the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A.
The High Court held that the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice dated 21.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act are not sustainable. The Court noted the undisputed facts that the amount of Rs. 18.97 crores was already declared by the petitioner, included in its revised return, and accepted by the revenue authorities through the final assessment order dated 30.03.2021. Furthermore, an affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax confirmed that the petitioner had paid income tax on this specific amount. The Court found it unsustainable to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 148A and Section 148 when the matter had already been concluded and accepted by the revenue, and tax had been paid. Therefore, the impugned order and notice were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that once an income has been declared, accepted by the revenue in a final assessment order, and tax paid thereon, the revenue cannot reopen the issue by issuing a notice under Section 148 based on the same grounds without any new material.
The High Court held that the issue raised in the writ petition was squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Suman Kandoi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2026] 182 taxmann.com 789 (Punjab & Haryana). Consequently, the Court allowed the petition in the same terms as the Suman Kandoi case. The impugned order dated 27.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, the assessment order dated 19.01.2026, the notice of demand dated 19.01.2026, and the penalty order dated 19.01.2026 issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were set aside. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent, the High Court will follow it to grant relief.
The High Court held that the parties were in agreement (ad idem) that the issue before the Court was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of the same Court in Suman Kandoi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2026] 182 taxmann.com 789 (Punjab & Haryana). Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition in the same terms as the Suman Kandoi case. This resulted in the setting aside of the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 19.01.2026, the notice of demand dated 19.01.2026, and the penalty order dated 19.01.2026 issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue is settled by a higher bench of the same court, subsequent cases with identical issues should follow that precedent.
The High Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, directed respondent No.2, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), to decide the petitioner's pending appeal. The decision is to be made preferably within four weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order. Respondent No.2 is also directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order. A copy of the order passed by respondent No.2 is to be supplied to the petitioner within one week thereafter. The petition was disposed of in terms of these directions. No specific issue regarding the validity of the order revoking the stay of demand was decided on merits.
The High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibbal and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji, considered the oral submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to amend it. The Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty as prayed for by the petitioner. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case as the petition was withdrawn.
The High Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The Court observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition (CWP-1720-2026) and also sought liberty to amend it. The Court allowed the withdrawal of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to amend it as prayed for. No decision was made on the merits of any underlying tax dispute. The operative direction was to permit the withdrawal and grant liberty to amend.
The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition (CWP-1708-2026) with liberty to amend another writ petition (CWP-5245-2025). The reasoning was based on the petitioner's request to incorporate a challenge to the newly introduced Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, into CWP-5245-2025. The Court acknowledged that this amendment was sought in line with an earlier permission granted by the High Court to amend CWP-5245-2025. The judgment also noted that the Supreme Court had permitted the revenue to challenge CWP-5245-2025. The operative direction was to grant the petitioner the liberty as prayed for. 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 Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji, held that the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, challenging Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was granted. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. The reasoning provided is that the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition and file a fresh one. No specific finding was made on the merits of challenging Section 147A itself, as the petition was withdrawn. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition.
The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the Civil 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 on the merits of any issue related to the original cause of action or the validity of Section 147A. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji, decided to dismiss the petition as withdrawn. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the court permitted the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the subsequent petition. The reasoning provided is that the petitioner sought withdrawal with specific liberty, which was granted by the court. The ratio decidendi is that a party can withdraw a petition and seek liberty to refile, including challenging specific provisions of law, provided the court grants such liberty. No other issues were decided on merits.
The High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. The petitioner was also granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. No decision was made on the merits of any issue, as the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.
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 any substantive issue on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji, decided to dismiss the petition as withdrawn. The court granted the petitioner the liberty 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's reasoning was based on the petitioner's counsel's request to withdraw the petition with the specified liberties. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the court permitted the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the new petition. The judgment does not delve into the merits of any tax dispute or the validity of Section 147A. The decision is solely based on the petitioner's request for withdrawal and the liberty sought. The operative direction is the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in its decision dated May 19, 2026, ordered that the present petition be disposed of as infructuous. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the relief sought in the petition had already been granted. Consequently, the challenge to the notice dated April 10, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was rendered moot. The court did not delve into the merits of the notice itself or the underlying tax proceedings. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as infructuous.
The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal. The court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, a final assessment order was passed, against which a statutory appeal has been filed and is pending. In light of this development, the petitioner sought to withdraw the present petition to pursue the statutory appeal. The respondents' counsel had no objection to this request. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the aforementioned appeal.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji, allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the penalty order dated March 30, 2026, as prayed for. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty. No specific findings were made on the merits of the penalty order itself, as the petition was withdrawn.
The High Court disposed of the petitions with a direction that the trial court will decide the complaints filed by the petitioner/complainant afresh by taking into account all documents and material placed on record, including any additional documents. The Court clarified that the observations and findings of the revisional Court recorded in its order dated 27.11.2018 will not have any bearing on the fresh adjudication, which will be decided on its own merits. The principle established is that when parties agree to a remand for fresh consideration, the appellate court should direct the lower court to decide the matter de novo, without being influenced by prior observations, ensuring a fair and independent adjudication.
The Tribunal (High Court) allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that a final penalty order had been passed during the pendency of the writ petition. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to challenge this subsequent penalty order. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty. Any pending applications were also to stand disposed of. The judgment did not decide on the merits of the original writ petition or the penalty order itself, as the petition was withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies as prayed for. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty. The court did not decide the merits of the challenge to the penalty order dated March 30, 2026. The principle that can be cited from this judgment is that a party can withdraw a writ petition if circumstances change post-filing, provided liberty to pursue other remedies is granted.
The High Court held that the impugned demand cannot be enforced against the petitioner. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra's case, which clearly states that once a resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31(1) of the IBC, all claims not forming part of the resolution plan stand extinguished and cannot be initiated or continued. The Court noted that the Income Tax Department's claim was rejected by the Resolution Professional on 29.06.2022, much before the resolution plan was submitted and approved by the NCLT on 17.08.2023. Neither the NCLT's order nor the Resolution Professional's order was challenged by the revenue, thus attaining finality. Consequently, the Court overruled the revenue's objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and set aside the assessment order, demand notices, and the appellate order. The ratio decidendi is that claims not included in an approved resolution plan under the IBC are extinguished and cannot be enforced against the corporate debtor or its new management.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 12.11.2025, passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, during the pendency of the present petition. The reasoning for this decision was based on the petitioner's explicit request for withdrawal with the stated liberty. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted. The court did not decide on the merits of the challenge to the order dated 12.11.2025, as the petition was withdrawn.
The High Court held that the concession made by the learned counsel for the revenue is accepted. In terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice dated March 30, 2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after April 1, 2021, for the assessment year 2013-14, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, shall be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner is granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No specific issue was left undecided; the matter was resolved based on the concession and the Supreme Court's precedent.
The High Court held that the revenue's concession, made in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, was acceptable. The court directed that the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2013-14, be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No specific issue was left undecided.
The High Court held that the revenue's concession, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, was acceptable. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021, issued for the assessment year 2013-14, was to be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No issue was left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the petition based on the concession made by the revenue. The revenue conceded that the impugned notice dated March 31, 2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after April 1, 2021, for the assessment year 2015-16, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Court directed the respondents-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during the subsequent proceedings. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was resolved through concession and procedural direction.
The High Court held that the concession made by the learned counsel for the revenue is satisfactory. In terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice dated March 30, 2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after April 1, 2021, for the assessment year 2013-14, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, shall be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice, in terms of the procedure laid down under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all possible pleas and defenses available to him during the proceedings.
The High Court held that the revenue's concession, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, was acceptable. The impugned notice dated 30.03.2021, issued to the petitioner for assessment year 2013-14 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice, in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was also granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
The High Court held that the revenue's concession, made in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, was satisfactory. The impugned notice dated 30.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2013-14, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was to be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice, in terms of the procedure laid down under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all possible pleas and defenses available to her during these proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted the liberty to challenge Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not decide any issues on the merits of the case as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that courts may grant liberty to withdraw and refile petitions, including the liberty to challenge specific provisions, when such a request is made by the petitioner and not opposed by the respondent.
The High Court noted the concession made by the learned counsel for the revenue. The revenue agreed that in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice dated March 31, 2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after April 1, 2021, for the assessment year 2015-16, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. This concession satisfied the learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings.