Loading High Court cases…
662 orders · Page 6 of 14
The High Court has not provided a separate decision on the merits of CWP No. 833 of 2025 in this order. Instead, it has directed that the order for this case is to be found in the detailed judgment of CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This implies that the outcome and reasoning for Lokesh Chand Gupta's petition are identical to those in the Jyoti Sareen case. The judgment also notes the disposal of all pending miscellaneous applications related to this petition. No specific findings, reasoning, or operative directions are provided for this case independently.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided that the order for CWP-23187-2023 (Sahi Sialkot Retail Outlet and Filling Station vs. Income Tax Officer and others) would be the same as the detailed judgment passed on the same date in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for CWP-23187-2023 are not elaborated upon in this order. The operative directions for CWP-23187-2023 are therefore dictated by the outcome of CWP No. 15791 of 2024. All pending miscellaneous applications related to CWP-23187-2023 were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the present writ petition (CWP-12743-2024) is to be decided in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi from the Jyoti Sareen case would apply to M K Proteins Limited. The judgment does not record any independent analysis or decision on the merits of CWP-12743-2024 itself. The operative directions would be those contained in the detailed judgment of CWP No. 15791 of 2024. No issues were expressly left undecided in this specific order, as it deferred to the other judgment.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided to dispose of the writ petition CWP-23676-2024 (Sohan Lal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar and others) in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others) of the same date. The specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi of the connected case are not provided in this order. Consequently, the operative directions for CWP-23676-2024 would be the same as those in the detailed judgment of CWP No.15791 of 2024. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, has directed that the order for the present writ petition (CWP-16665-2024) is to be seen in the detailed judgment passed in a connected case, CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This implies that the decision in Harvinder Singh's case is contingent upon or identical to the decision in Jyoti Sareen's case. No specific findings or reasoning pertaining directly to Harvinder Singh's petition are provided in this excerpt. The court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications in this case. The operative directions would be those contained in the judgment of CWP No.15791 of 2024.
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 07.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The reasoning is that both parties agreed to the application of the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case involving similar circumstances, the court will grant that relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh has not provided a specific decision or reasoning for the writ petition filed by Shilpi Rana (CWP-11983-2025) in the provided text. Instead, it has directed that the order in this case will be in accordance with the detailed judgment passed on the same date in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi applicable to Shilpi Rana's case are contingent upon the outcome of the Jyoti Sareen case, which is not detailed here. No specific relief or operative directions are mentioned for Shilpi Rana's petition, other than it being disposed of in line with the other judgment.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its judgment dated 10.09.2026, decided that the order in CWP-23711-2025 (O&M) would be the same as the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for CWP-23711-2025 are not elaborated upon in this excerpt, as they are contingent on the decision in the companion case. The operative directions for CWP-23711-2025 are therefore not specified here, other than the general statement that it will follow the other judgment. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided to dispose of the writ petition CWP-11954-2025 (Sunil Vats Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Faridabad and others) in terms of the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning and the specific findings of the Tribunal on the issues are not elaborated in this particular order, as it relies on the decision of a connected matter. Consequently, all pending miscellaneous applications filed in CWP-11954-2025 were also disposed of. No specific relief or operative direction is mentioned for Sunil Vats in this excerpt, other than the general direction to follow the connected judgment.
The High Court, based on the consensus between the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, allowed the petition. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as was 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 08.04.2024 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 a specific precedent being applied, the court will follow that precedent to grant similar relief. No issues were left undecided.
The High Court decided that the present writ petition (CWP-11919-2025) would be disposed of in terms of the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning for this decision is that the present petition is to follow the precedent set by the connected case. The judgment does not provide the specific findings or ratio decidendi from the Jyoti Sareen case, nor does it detail the operative directions issued in this specific writ petition, other than stating it is decided in terms of the other judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, has decided to dispose of the writ petition CWP-11856-2025 (Ria Goenka Vs. Income Tax Officer and others) in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for Ria Goenka's case are not elaborated upon in this order. The operative directions would be to grant the relief, if any, as determined in the Jyoti Sareen case. Any pending miscellaneous applications have also been disposed of. 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 that the present writ petition (CWP-11643-2025) would be disposed of in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, no independent findings or reasoning specific to the facts of Meenakshi Mittal's case are provided in this order. The court also directed that all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of. The substantive legal determination and the relief granted would be as per the judgment in the connected case.
The High Court held that the order in the present writ petition (CWP-25471-2024) would be governed by the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, of even date. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for CWP-25471-2024 are not elaborated upon in this order. The High Court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications. The operative directions would be those contained in the aforementioned connected judgment.
The High Court held that the present writ petition (CWP-16247-2026) would be decided in terms of the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the outcome of Mohit Goyal's petition is directly linked to the findings and directions in the Jyoti Sareen case. The reasoning and ratio decidendi would therefore be those established in the aforementioned connected writ petition. The operative directions would be those specified in the judgment for CWP No.15791 of 2024. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the decision was deferred to another judgment.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated September 10, 2026, did not provide a specific decision or reasoning for CWP-16258-2026. Instead, the Court explicitly stated that the order for this petition would be found in a detailed judgment of even date passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi applicable to Bhagwan Dass's case are not elaborated upon in this particular judgment. The operative directions for this case are implicitly contained within the aforementioned related judgment. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court did not provide a specific holding or reasoning for the present writ petition (CWP-16261-2026). Instead, it explicitly stated that the order for this petition is the same as the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the findings, reasoning, and operative directions of the present judgment are contingent upon the contents of the aforementioned connected writ petition, which are not provided here. Any issue expressly left undecided is not recorded.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its judgment dated 10.09.2026, disposed of CWP-16259-2026 (O&M) by referring to a detailed judgment of even date passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The court also ordered the disposal of all pending miscellaneous applications, if any. The specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for CWP-16259-2026 are not detailed in this excerpt but are stated to be covered by the aforementioned related judgment. No specific relief or operative directions are mentioned for the petitioner in this particular judgment.
The High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, allowed the petition based on the consensus between the parties. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India. This relief involved the quashing of the impugned notice dated 10.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of learned counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents to extend the benefit of the Jyoti Sareen judgment to the present case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and consequential proceedings.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, did not provide a specific ruling or reasoning on the merits of the case filed by Sumit Jindal (CWP-25594-2025). Instead, the Court directed that the detailed judgment for this case should be referred to the judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi applicable to Sumit Jindal's case are not elaborated upon in this order. The operative direction is to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the decision on the merits was deferred to another judgment.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided that the present writ petition (CWP-25879-2025) would be governed by the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for CWP-25879-2025 are not elaborated upon in this order. The court also noted that all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of. The operative directions and relief granted would be as per the judgment in the connected case.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its decision dated 10.09.2026, disposed of the Civil Writ Petition No. 21713 of 2025. The Court directed that the order for this petition would be in line with the detailed judgment previously passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled 'Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others'. Consequently, no independent findings or reasoning specific to the facts of Jimmy Garg's case were recorded in this order. The operative direction was to follow the decision in the connected case. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The judgment does not specify any issues left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, has stated that the decision for this case (CWP-25203-2026) is contained within the detailed judgment passed on the same date in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, no specific findings, reasoning, or ratio decidendi are provided for Suresh Kumar Sain's petition in this order. The operative directions would be those stipulated in the referenced judgment. Any pending miscellaneous applications have also been disposed of.
The High Court did not render a decision on the merits of the case. Instead, it directed that the order for this petition would be the same as the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024. This implies that the outcome of the present petition is contingent upon the decision in the aforementioned connected case. No specific findings, reasoning, or ratio decidendi were provided for this particular case in this excerpt. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, the petitioner was entitled to the same relief. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2024, 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 if parties agree to a similar outcome based on a prior binding precedent, the court should grant that relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and all consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court directed that the order for this writ petition should be seen in the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This implies that the present case was decided based on the principles and findings laid down in the Jyoti Sareen case. The High Court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications. The specific findings or reasoning pertaining solely to Randhir Singh's case are not detailed in this excerpt, as it refers to another judgment for the complete order. The operative direction is to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided that the present writ petition (CWP-13282-2025) 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 operative directions and the outcome for Parneet Kaur Maini's petition are implicitly determined by the ruling in the Jyoti Sareen case. The judgment also notes that all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of. No specific findings or reasoning pertaining directly to the facts of CWP-13282-2025 are recorded in this excerpt.
The High Court held that the present writ petition (CWP-15892-2026) would be decided in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning and findings of the Tribunal in the Jyoti Sareen case would therefore apply to this case. The specific details of the findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi from the Jyoti Sareen judgment are not reproduced here, as this order is a reference to that judgment. The operative directions would be those contained in the referenced judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided in this order, as it deferred to another judgment.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, has decided to dispose of the writ petition CWP-24630-2024 (Sushil Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others) by referring to the detailed judgment passed in a connected matter, CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This implies that the decision in Sushil Bansal's case is based on the legal principles and findings established in the Jyoti Sareen case. The operative direction is to follow the detailed judgment of the cited case. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The specific findings and reasoning for CWP-24630-2024 are not elaborated upon in this order, as they are incorporated by reference.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh has indicated that the decision for CWP-13279-2025 (O&M) 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. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for the present case are not elaborated upon in this excerpt. The operative directions and any specific relief granted or denied are also not detailed here, as they are contingent on the judgment in the related writ petition. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the decision is deferred to the related case.
The High Court held that the present writ petition (CWP-25175-2025) would be decided in accordance with the detailed judgment passed on the same date in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings and reasoning pertaining to Neeraj Bhatia's case are not elaborated upon in this order. The operative direction is that the decision in this petition is contingent upon and identical to the decision in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific issues were expressly left undecided, as the entire matter was to be governed by the companion judgment.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court followed its previous decision in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), which had quashed an impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the agreement of both the petitioner and the revenue to extend the relief granted in the earlier judgment to the present case. The operative direction is the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court did not provide an independent decision on the merits of CWP-16374-2026. Instead, it explicitly stated that the order for this petition was 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 of B D Ispat Private Limited's petition was determined by the findings and directions issued in the Jyoti Sareen case. The court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications related to this petition. No specific findings, reasoning, or ratio decidendi pertaining directly to B D Ispat Private Limited's case are recorded in this order, beyond the reference to the other judgment.
The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 19.04.2024 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 prior judgment, indicating that the revenue did not contest the grounds for quashing. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings.
The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, allowed the petition. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the cited case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 23.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, has disposed of the writ petition filed by Yogesh Kumar Goel. The Court has indicated that the detailed reasoning and operative directions are contained in a judgment of even date passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi pertaining to Yogesh Kumar Goel's petition are not elaborated upon in this excerpt. The judgment also notes the disposal of all pending miscellaneous applications. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the substantive decision is deferred to the connected judgment.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its judgment dated 10.09.2026, decided CWP-18742-2026 by referring to the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The operative part of the judgment indicates that the decision in the present case is contingent upon and identical to the findings in the aforementioned connected writ petition. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for CWP-18742-2026 are not independently elaborated but are incorporated by reference. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court, upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, agreed that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen and others (CWP-15791-2024), decided on 10.09.2026. In light of this consensus and the precedent, the petition was allowed. The court ordered the quashing of the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the agreement between the parties and the application of the principle established in the cited case, which likely dealt with similar issues concerning the validity of notices under Section 148. No specific issue was left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, while deciding CWP-22544-2024, has directed that the order for this petition is to be in line with the detailed judgment passed on the same date in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This implies that the issues and arguments presented in CWP-22544-2024 are considered to be identical or substantially similar to those in the Jyoti Sareen case, and the decision in the latter case will govern the outcome of the former. The specific reasoning and findings pertaining to CWP-22544-2024 are not elaborated upon in this order, as they are subsumed within the judgment of the connected writ petition. Consequently, the operative directions and relief granted to Sumaanya Developers Private Limited are dependent on the outcome of CWP No. 15791 of 2024.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, did not provide a specific ruling or reasoning for the case of Savita Jindal (CWP-11965-2025). Instead, it explicitly stated that the detailed judgment for this petition is to be found in another case, CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, decided on the same date. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, ratio decidendi, and operative directions for Savita Jindal's case are not discernible from this order alone, as they are incorporated by reference into another judgment. Any pending miscellaneous applications related to this petition were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, stated that the detailed judgment for CWP-768-2025 (Pankaj Yadav Vs. Income Tax Officer and others) is provided in an order of the same date passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the decision in Pankaj Yadav's case is contingent upon the findings and reasoning presented in the Jyoti Sareen judgment. The operative directions and the specific relief granted to Pankaj Yadav would be those stipulated in the Jyoti Sareen judgment. The judgment does not record any specific findings or reasoning directly applicable to Pankaj Yadav's case, other than referencing the connected matter. Any issues expressly left undecided would also be those from the Jyoti Sareen judgment.
The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned notices dated 09.04.2021 and 27.07.2022. The decision was based on the concession made by the revenue before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, which was reiterated in Deepak Steel and Power Limited vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. The Supreme Court had acknowledged that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The High Court found that the notices in question were issued after April 1, 2021, and therefore, in light of the revenue's concession and the Supreme Court's observations, the notices were quashed. The operative direction was the quashing of the notices. No other issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, decided to allow the petitioner's request. The Court ordered the petition to be dismissed as withdrawn. Crucially, 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 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The reasoning provided is solely based on the oral request made by the petitioner's counsel. No findings were made on the merits of the original challenge or the validity of Section 147A.
The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings. The Court noted that the facts were not in dispute and that the Settlement Commission had accepted the offered income and granted immunity from prosecution and penalty, except for prosecution proceedings already launched for the illegal operation of a locker. However, the Court observed that the discharge application was dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that immunity was not granted for the specific offence of making false statements. The High Court, referencing precedents, held that the continuation of proceedings after a significant delay of 17-18 years, especially when a settlement had been reached and the Settlement Commission's order was not challenged, would serve no meaningful purpose and would be an abuse of the process of law. The Court also emphasized that the primary purpose of penal provisions, acting as a deterrent, had already been served by the long pendency of the prosecution. Therefore, the criminal complaint, summoning order, discharge application dismissal order, and revision dismissal order were quashed.