Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgments — 2026

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in light of the consensus between the parties and following its previous decision in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others) dated 10.09.2026, allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 08.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the mutual agreement of the parties to abide by the outcome of the Jyoti Sareen case, implying that the facts and legal grounds in the present case were similar enough to warrant the same relief. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior binding precedent, the court will grant that relief.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 26.06.2025 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 that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the prior judgment of the Court in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential actions. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen (CWP-15791-2024), the petition should be allowed. 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 grant the same relief as previously awarded in a similar writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that where parties consent and a clear precedent exists for similar relief, the court should grant that relief to avoid multiplicity of litigation and ensure consistency. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court allowed the petition based on the consensus reached by the parties. 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 30.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was primarily based on the agreement between the petitioner and the revenue, obviating the need for an independent adjudication on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior binding precedent, the court will give effect to that consensus.

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-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the Court allowed the petition. The impugned notice dated 30.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a precedent established by the same court in a similar matter, the court will follow that precedent to grant similar relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings.

The High Court held that, in light of the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief. The court found that the petition was allowed in terms of the prior judgment. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 06.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The ratio of this decision is that where parties agree to follow a binding precedent, and the facts are analogous, the court will grant similar relief to uphold consistency and judicial economy. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Justices Deepak Sibal and Sunish Bindlish, allowed the petition. The court's decision was based on the consensus reached by both the petitioner and the revenue that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as 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 27.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to be bound by a prior judgment on similar facts and issues, the court will extend that relief. No issues were left undecided.

The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 25.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a previous judgment granting similar relief, the court will extend that relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that in light of the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific precedent being applied, the court will follow that precedent to grant similar relief. No issues were left undecided.

The High Court, in light of the consensus reached between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings. No issues were 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-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 27.06.2025, 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 that a case should follow a prior precedent of the same court, the court will grant the same relief. No issues were 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-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 12.06.2026, 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 the same court in a similar matter, the court will grant the same relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings.

The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 05.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential assessment proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the learned counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents to grant the same relief as was previously awarded in the cited case. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings.

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 passed in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 29.03.2025, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings that may have arisen therefrom. The reasoning is based on the agreement of both parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to parity with a prior judgment on similar facts and issues, the court will grant the same relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following its previous decision in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 25.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and also quashed any consequential proceedings. The reasoning appears to be based on the acceptance of the petitioner's plea for similar relief as granted in the cited precedent, suggesting that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the notice were found to be without merit or improperly initiated, as per the understanding derived from the Jyoti Sareen judgment. No specific issue was left undecided.

The High Court, in terms of a previous judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP-15791-2024), allowed the petition based on a consensus between the parties. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 31.03.2024 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 and the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings.

The High Court held that assessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings without conducting a faceless assessment as envisaged by Section 144B of the Act, were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India. It reiterated the principle that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or make them otiose, and legislative enactments with financial implications must be followed strictly and mandatorily. The Court found that the authorities cannot usurp legal provisions to their own satisfaction or convenience, causing hardship and confusion. Therefore, the notice dated 15.04.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 148 and all consequential assessment proceedings were set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

The High Court, in light of the consensus reached between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 23.05.2025, which was issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, all consequential proceedings, if any, were also quashed. The Court directed that the pending application(s), if any, would also stand disposed of. The reasoning was based on the agreement of both parties to extend the relief granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen (supra) to the present petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial precedent, the court will uphold that agreement to dispose of the matter efficiently.

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-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others), based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned notice dated 10.04.2024 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 agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to the same relief as granted in a prior binding precedent, the court will grant that relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 24.02.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties and the prior judgment which had already addressed a similar challenge. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to similar relief granted in a binding precedent, the court will extend that relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that, in light of the consensus reached between the parties, the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The court allowed the petition in terms of this consensus. The reasoning was based on the agreement of counsel, leading to the quashing of the impugned notice dated 17.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior binding precedent, the court should honor that consensus to avoid unnecessary litigation and ensure consistency. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court allowed the petition in terms of the judgment passed in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024). Consequently, the notice dated 04.04.2022 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the consensus reached by both parties, who agreed that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent case. The specific grounds for quashing in Jyoti Sareen's case, which form the basis of this decision, are not detailed in the provided text. The operative direction is the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen (supra). Consequently, the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed. The Court's reasoning was based on the parties' agreement to extend the relief granted in the cited precedent to the present petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial precedent, the court will uphold that agreement and grant the consequential relief.

The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 30.03.2025, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is primarily based on the agreement between the petitioner and the revenue 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 binding precedent, the court will uphold that agreement and grant the consequential relief. No issues were 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, allowed the petition. The court noted a consensus between the learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notice dated 14.02.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue concerning a Section 148 notice has been decided in favour of an assessee in a previous judgment by the same court, and the revenue agrees to the same relief, the current petition will be allowed in terms of the precedent.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in light of the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition. The court directed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as 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 13.03.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. 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. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court allowed the petition in terms of the judgment passed in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The court quashed the impugned notice dated 07.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the consensus reached by both parties that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior binding precedent, the court will grant that relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (CWP-15791-2024), the petition should be allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 23.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to parity of relief with a prior judgment, and that prior judgment quashed a notice under Section 148, the present petition should also be allowed to that extent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowed the petition in terms of the judgment passed in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The court quashed the impugned notice dated 01.04.2022 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 that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to follow a prior judgment of the same court on similar facts, the court will grant the same relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court, upon agreement between the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents (revenue), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 27.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the consensus that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as had been granted in a prior judgment of the Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). 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. No issues were left undecided.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 29.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and 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 Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific precedent being applied, the court will follow that precedent to grant similar relief. No issue was left undecided.

The High Court, in light of the consensus reached between the parties and following the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 30.03.2024 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 agreement of the parties and the established relief granted in a similar matter. The principle established is that where parties agree and a similar precedent exists, the court will grant the same relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court allowed the petition in terms of the judgment passed in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024). Consequently, the notice dated 06.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The reasoning is based on the consensus reached between the parties, wherein the petitioner was to receive the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial pronouncement, the court will uphold that agreement and grant the consequential 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-15791-2024 (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 19.04.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if a party is similarly situated to a party in a prior judgment of the same court, and the revenue agrees to the same relief, then the prior judgment's outcome will be applied. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court, in light of the consensus reached between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as had been granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 27.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, were quashed. The reasoning was based on the agreement of both parties and the application of the principle of parity with the earlier judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case, which presumably dealt with similar issues regarding the validity or issuance of the Section 148 notice. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court, based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for 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 passed in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 20.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. 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. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (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 reassessment proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to extend the relief granted in the cited case to the present petitioner. The principle established is that if a similar case with identical facts and relief has been decided, and the parties agree to the same outcome, the court will grant that relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP-15791-2024) decided on 10.09.2026, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and also set aside any consequential proceedings that may have arisen from it. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to grant the petitioner the same relief as was granted in the cited case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties consent to a particular outcome based on a prior judicial precedent, the court can grant that relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court, in terms of a consent order and in light of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case, allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 13.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement between the parties that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (decided on 10.09.2026), allowed the writ petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 23.03.2024 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 and the principle that similar relief should be granted where a consensus exists and a prior judgment has established a precedent. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and related proceedings.

The High Court held that, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the judgment in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief. The Court allowed the petition, resulting in the quashing of the impugned notice dated 17.04.2023 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 counsel and the precedent established in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree and a prior judgment exists granting similar relief on similar grounds, the court should follow that precedent to ensure consistency and avoid multiplicity of litigation. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court, following its own prior decisions in Jasjit Singh and Jatinder Singh Bhangu, held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board cannot override statutory provisions or render them obsolete. Legislative enactments with financial implications must be strictly followed. The Court found that by exercising powers under Sections 119 and 120, as well as Section 144B (7 & 8) of the Act, authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship and confusion to assessees. Instructions and circulars can only supplement statutory provisions. Consequently, notices issued under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessments as envisaged under Section 144B were found to be contrary to the Act. The Court set aside the notices and orders, including the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) dated 31.03.2024, the order issued under Section 148A(d) dated 27.04.2024, and the notice issued under Section 148 dated 27.04.2024, along with consequential proceedings, for want of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. The writ petition was allowed in these terms.

The High Court held that the decision in the present writ petition, CWP-20450-2026, would be governed by the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, on the same date. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi applicable to CWP-20450-2026 are not elaborated upon in this order but are to be found in the aforementioned connected judgment. The court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, filed in this petition. No specific relief or direction is mentioned for the petitioner in this order, other than the reference to the connected judgment.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided that the present writ petition (CWP-21600-2026) would be governed by the detailed judgment passed in the connected case, CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi of the Jyoti Sareen case would apply to Pardeep Bansal's petition. The operative directions would therefore be those stipulated in the Jyoti Sareen judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the decision was deferred to the connected case.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided to dispose of the writ petition CWP-20600-2025 (Amit Mehta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon and others) in accordance with the detailed judgment previously passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The specific findings and reasoning from the Jyoti Sareen judgment are not reproduced in this order. Consequently, the operative directions for this case would mirror those in the Jyoti Sareen judgment. Any pending miscellaneous applications associated with this petition were also disposed of.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided that the present writ petition (CWP-21140-2025) would be governed by the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024, Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, no independent findings or reasoning were provided for Rajesh Gupta's specific case within this order. The operative direction was to dispose of the matter in line with the decision in the connected case. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its judgment dated 10.09.2026, decided to pass its order in CWP-21136-2025 based on the detailed judgment of an earlier, connected case, CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for CWP-21136-2025 are not elaborated upon in this particular order. The judgment also notes the disposal of all pending miscellaneous applications. No specific relief or direction is mentioned for Rajesh Gupta in this order, other than the procedural disposition.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, did not provide a detailed judgment on the merits of the case CWP-21604-2026. Instead, it directed that the detailed judgment should be referred to from another case, CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi applicable to the present petition are not elaborated upon in this excerpt. The operative directions for this specific case are not detailed, other than the disposal of pending miscellaneous applications.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided to dispose of CWP-21286-2025 by referring to the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This indicates that the findings, reasoning, and operative directions in the Jyoti Sareen case would apply to the present petition. The judgment does not provide specific details of the issues decided or the reasoning applied in the Jyoti Sareen case, nor does it mention any specific amount in dispute or procedural history beyond the filing of the writ petition and the disposal of miscellaneous applications. Therefore, the specific ratio decidendi for this case is not discernible from the provided text, as it is entirely dependent on the referenced judgment.