Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgments — 2026

The High Court of Punjab and 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 The Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. Crucially, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the Court specifically permitted the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The reasoning provided is that the dismissal is 'as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for', indicating the Court's acceptance of the petitioner's request for a procedural withdrawal and the right to re-approach.

The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, with the additional liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty granted. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, considered the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition and requested liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Crucially, this liberty was also to include the right to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acceded to this request. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty as prayed for granted to the petitioner. No decision was made on the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A.

The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, which would also include a challenge to Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty granted as prayed for. The court did not delve into the merits of the challenge to Section 147A itself, as the primary focus was on the procedural aspect of withdrawal and the permission to re-file.

The Tribunal decided that the appeal filed by the revenue was covered by the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 2 SCC 723. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the revenue's counsel. As the appeal was covered by the apex court's decision, the High Court found no reason to proceed further with the appeal on merits. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in default. This decision was based on two primary grounds. Firstly, it was noted that for the second consecutive occasion, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, despite the Registry having informed the petitioner's counsel about the case being listed after a remand order from the Supreme Court dated 10.04.2026. Secondly, the Court observed that no amendment application had been filed by the petitioner to include a challenge to the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment does not delve into the merits of any substantive issue related to the Income-tax Act or the assessment proceedings, as the dismissal was purely on procedural grounds. No specific relief was granted or denied on the substantive merits of the case.

The Tribunal (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, which included the challenge to Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. No specific finding was made on the merits of the challenge to Section 147A, as the petition was withdrawn.

The Tribunal, in light of the concession made by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, held that the present appeal is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in 'CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.' (2010) 2 SCC 723. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The reasoning is based solely on the admission by the revenue that the case is covered by a higher judicial precedent. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the concession. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, decided to dismiss the writ 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 reasoning for granting this liberty is based on the petitioner's request and the court's discretion in such matters, allowing parties to pursue their legal remedies appropriately. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made as the petition was withdrawn.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in default. The primary reasons for dismissal were the persistent non-appearance of the petitioner or their counsel on two consecutive occasions, including after a remand order from the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to file an amendment application to challenge the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as might have been intended. The Court noted that the Registry had duly informed the counsel about the listing of the case. The judgment does not delve into the merits of any substantive issue related to the Income Tax Act, as the dismissal was procedural.

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 the merits of the case, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 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 Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, considered the oral submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and to challenge Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court, in its decision dated September 2, 2026, dismissed the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. No specific findings on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A were made, as the petition was disposed of at the withdrawal stage.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the Revenue's request, permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024, which allow for the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect in terms of these circulars. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided is that the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect, as per the Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT's original order that was under challenge are not discussed or decided upon by the High Court in this proceeding, as the appeal itself was withdrawn.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the appellant-revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect, in terms of the Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal noted that the revenue sought to withdraw the present appeal on account of low tax effect, in terms of the Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The principle derived is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue based on low tax effect as per administrative instructions from the CBDT. No specific issue was decided on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant-revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect, citing Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The High Court, in its oral order, allowed the withdrawal of the appeal on this ground. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The ratio would be that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue if they fall under the low tax effect criteria as per CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the appellant-revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect, in terms of the Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Tribunal noted that pending miscellaneous applications also stood disposed of. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire appeal was disposed of based on the revenue's request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect, as per the Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal also noted that pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of. No decision on the merits of the case was rendered.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal could be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the explicit request made by the revenue's counsel to withdraw the appeal in light of the low tax effect, as per the instructions contained in the Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Tribunal noted that the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous applications in the matter were also disposed of. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This liberty also extended to challenging Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The specific merits of the challenge to Section 147A were not decided 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 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 petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case 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 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 new petition. The court's decision was based solely on the petitioner's request for withdrawal and the subsequent grant of liberty. No substantive issues regarding the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A were adjudicated upon. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with the specified liberty.

The High Court allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the low tax effect, as stipulated in the Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Court noted that the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on this specific ground. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

The High Court allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect, in terms of the Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Court found no impediment to allowing this request. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that the Revenue can withdraw an appeal if the tax effect is low, as per CBDT circulars.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) sought to withdraw the appeal. The appellant requested liberty to revive the appeal at a later stage if necessary, to challenge the ITAT's order dated August 21, 2026. The respondent-department did not object to this request. Consequently, the High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal with the liberty as prayed for by the assessee. No decision was made on the merits of the case concerning the benchmarking of international transactions.

The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, acknowledging the submission made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue, has dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The decision to withdraw was predicated on the low tax effect, as per the Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Court also noted that pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that the revenue is permitted to withdraw appeals based on low tax effect as per extant circulars. No specific findings on the merits of the original assessment or appeal were made, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to a low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. No specific issue was left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the explicit instructions contained within the CBDT Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024, which permit withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is low. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. 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 Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action and to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as prayed for. No decision was made on the merits of the challenge to Section 147A.

The Tribunal, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of in light of the withdrawal of the main appeal. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the substantive tax dispute, if any existed, as the appeal was withdrawn procedurally. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be withdrawn by the revenue if it is of low tax effect, leading to its dismissal as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The judgment does not provide any reasoning on the merits of the case, as the appeal was withdrawn before any substantive adjudication.

The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue explicitly sought to withdraw the appeal on the grounds of low tax effect. The court accepted this request and disposed of the appeal accordingly. No other issues were decided on merits. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

The Tribunal decided that the appeal filed by the revenue-appellant should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is solely based on the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal due to a low tax effect. The Tribunal granted the revenue's request, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. No specific findings on the merits of the case or any substantive legal principles were discussed or decided, as the appeal was withdrawn before a decision on its substance could be reached. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided is that the revenue-appellant sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding on the merits of the original dispute was made, as the appeal was disposed of procedurally. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn and inform the respondent.

The Tribunal held that the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted 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. The court noted that the withdrawal was with liberty as prayed for by the petitioner. No decision was made on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, 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, which includes challenging Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A, as the matter was disposed of based on the withdrawal request. The principle that can be cited is that courts generally grant liberty to withdraw petitions with liberty to refile, especially when procedural or strategic reasons necessitate it, provided it does not prejudice the other party or abuse the process of law. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect. The Tribunal accepted this request and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue if the tax effect is low. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on the revenue's request.

The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This fresh petition would also be permitted to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted. No decision on the merits of any substantive issue was made.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, decided to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the court allowed the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The reasoning for this decision is solely based on the petitioner's request for withdrawal and liberty. No findings were made on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A.

The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. The court also permitted the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty granted. The specific merits of challenging Section 147A were not decided as the petition was withdrawn.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in default. This decision was based on the repeated non-appearance of the petitioner, which is noted as the third consecutive occasion. The Court also considered an application for amendment that sought to challenge the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, due to the petitioner's absence, no arguments were heard on this amendment application. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of any substantive issue related to the Income Tax Act, including the challenge to Section 147A, as the dismissal was procedural. The principle derived is that persistent non-appearance by a petitioner can lead to the dismissal of their case.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as prayed for by the appellant. The court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order under challenge was also being contested in another appeal (ITA-284-2026) and that the appellant wished to withdraw the current appeal to pursue the other one. The court granted liberty to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty to pursue the other pending appeal.

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 held that the present Civil Writ Petition (CWP No. 19555 of 2021) had become infructuous. This conclusion was reached based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who stated that a previous judgment of the High Court dated 18.08.2026, passed in CWP No. 24116 of 2025 (Subhash Chander Mittal Vs. Union of India and others), had rendered the present petition infructuous. The Court accepted this submission without delving into the merits of the original petition or the grounds raised therein. The ratio decidendi is that if a subsequent event or a related court decision makes the subject matter of a petition moot or redundant, the petition can be disposed of as infructuous. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition.