Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgments — 2026

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court kept the question of law open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings, as per instructions from the appellant's counsel.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, upon being informed by the appellant's counsel that instructions had been received to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being under Rs. 2 Crores, in line with Circular No. 9 of 2024, allowed the withdrawal. The Court explicitly stated that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Crucially, the Court also noted and accepted the appellant's request to keep the question of law open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings. Therefore, no decision on the merits of the case was made, and the underlying legal issue remains undecided.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in this judgment, has not provided any specific findings or reasoning on the merits of the appeal filed by GEATER Mohali Area Development Authority. Instead, it explicitly states that the decision for this appeal is being made based on the detailed order passed in a connected case, ITA-599-2006, titled 'Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I'. Therefore, the specific ratio decidendi and operative directions for this particular appeal are not discernible from the provided text, as they are contingent on the outcome of the referenced connected case. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court kept the question of law open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the dismissal was made without commenting on the merits of the case. This decision was based solely on the submission made by the appellant's counsel, who requested the dismissal in view of the aforementioned Board Circulars. The court also disposed of any pending applications. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be dismissed as withdrawn upon the request of the appellant, especially when supported by administrative instructions from the CBDT, without delving into the substantive grounds of appeal.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The court explicitly stated that the question of law remains open for future adjudication.

The appellant's counsel, on instructions, sought to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being under Rs. 2 Crores, as per a CBDT circular. The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated January 14, 2026, disposed of the appeal filed by GEATER LUDHIANA AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. The Court directed that for orders, reference should be made to the detailed order passed on the same date in ITA-599-2006, titled 'Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I'. Any pending applications in this matter were also disposed of. The specific findings, reasoning, ratio decidendi, and operative directions pertaining to the appeal of GEATER LUDHIANA AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY are not detailed in this judgment, as they are subsumed within the order of the connected case.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect involved was under Rs. 2 Crores and that the Revenue had instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Court also acknowledged the Revenue's request to keep the question of law open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, with the question of law being kept open. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

The High Court held that the authorities failed to consider that the addition of stock in AY 1994-95 should be accounted for in AY 1995-96. Therefore, the matter needs re-examination.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that Section 245-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, makes every order of settlement passed by the Settlement Commission conclusive as to the matters stated therein, and such matters cannot be reopened in any proceeding under the Act or any other law, except as provided in the Chapter. The petitioner's challenge was primarily based on the alleged failure of the Settlement Commission to appreciate evidence, not on any procedural violation or breach of principles of natural justice. The Court reiterated that it cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Settlement Commission unless there is a violation of procedure, principles of natural justice, or the order is contrary to statutory provisions. Since no such allegations were made, and the dispute was solely about the appreciation of evidence, the Court found no grounds for interference, relying on the principle laid down in 'Jyotendra Sinhji Vs. S.I. Tripathy and Ors.' (1993) 201 ITR 611.

The High Court held that BRCs are issued consignment-wise and a consolidated BRC is not issued. The appellant cannot be denied the deduction solely for not submitting a consolidated BRC.