Loading High Court cases…
662 orders · Page 8 of 14
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not decide on the merits of any issue related to the assessment or the validity of Section 147A, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.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 held that the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This includes the liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The reasoning is based on the petitioner's request and the court's discretion to grant such liberty. The operative direction is the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with the specified liberty.
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 concerning the same cause of action. Crucially, the petitioner was also granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the subsequent petition. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's request for withdrawal with the specified liberties. No substantive issues regarding the merits of the case or the Income Tax Act were decided. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with the granted liberty.
The High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, with the specific permission to also challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning provided is that the petitioner sought withdrawal with such liberty, and the court acceded to this request. The operative direction is the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with the granted liberty.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A. The ratio decidendi is that a party can withdraw a petition with liberty to refile, especially when seeking to challenge a specific provision of law that may have become relevant.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the new petition. The Court did not decide any substantive issues related to the Income-tax Act or the petitioner's tax liability. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with the specified liberties.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. Crucially, the court also granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the new petition. The reasoning behind this decision is not elaborated upon, but it implies the court found no impediment to granting the withdrawal with the specified liberties. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Court was informed that an assessment order had been passed while the writ petition was pending. Based on this information, the petitioner's counsel stated that the petition had become infructuous. The High Court accepted this submission and proceeded to dispose of the petition. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original petition or the assessment order. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as infructuous.
The High Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 29.03.2024 was passed without granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing, which constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the assessment order. The Court granted liberty to the respondents (revenue) to pass a fresh assessment order, but only after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the law. The appeal was disposed of based on this consensus.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the writ petition filed by Sh Ved Prakash (CWP-13563-2026). The Court's decision to dismiss the main case was based on the reasoning provided in a separate, concurrently decided writ petition, CWP-17064-2026, titled ‘Sh Manik Seth and Others vs. The Initiating Officer BPU Ludhiana and Another’. The specific findings or ratio decidendi from the referred judgment are not elaborated upon in the provided text. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the petition was dismissed outright.
The High Court allowed the application to place documents on record, subject to all just exceptions. The main writ petition filed by Sh Naresh Aggarwal was dismissed. The reasoning for the dismissal of the writ petition was explicitly stated to be the same as that provided in the order for CWP-17064-2026, titled 'Sh Manik Seth and Others vs. The Initiating Officer BPU Ludhiana and Another'. This indicates that the High Court found no grounds to entertain the writ petition, likely due to the established legal position or factual findings in the connected case. All pending applications were also disposed of. No specific issues were left undecided, as the petition was dismissed outright.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the writ petition filed by Sh Amit Nanda. The dismissal was based on the reasoning provided in an order of even date passed in a connected writ petition, CWP-17064-2026, titled 'Sh Manik Seth and Others vs. The Initiating Officer BPU Ludhiana and Another'. The specific grounds for dismissal or the ratio decidendi from the referenced order are not elaborated in this judgment. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the writ petition filed by Sh Anil Kumar. The Court explicitly stated that the dismissal was for reasons to be found in the order of even date passed in CWP-17064-2026, titled 'Sh Manik Seth and Others vs. The Initiating Officer BPU Ludhiana and Another'. This indicates that the legal and factual basis for dismissing Sh Anil Kumar's petition was identical or closely aligned with the grounds on which the 'Sh Manik Seth and Others' case was decided. Consequently, the operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition. All pending miscellaneous applications associated with this petition were also disposed of.
The High Court, comprising the Acting Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor, dismissed the writ petition. The Court stated that the dismissal was for reasons to be found in an order passed on the same date in a connected case, CWP-17064-2026, titled 'Sh Manik Seth and Others vs. The Initiating Officer BPU Ludhiana and Another'. No specific findings on any issues related to the Income Tax Act were recorded in this excerpt. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition and dispose of any pending miscellaneous applications.
The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. The court also granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court's decision was based on the oral submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The operative direction is the dismissal of the present writ petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the court granted the relief sought by the petitioner for withdrawal.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court's decision was based on the oral submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and no substantive arguments on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A were considered or decided. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.
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 liberty specifically included the right to challenge Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the new petition. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's request for withdrawal with the stated liberty. No decision was made on the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A.
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 and to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the new petition. The reasoning for this decision is not elaborated upon, but it indicates the court's willingness to permit withdrawal under these specific circumstances. No other issues were decided on merits, and no specific findings were made regarding the substantive tax matter.
The High Court held that the writ petition was dismissed in default. This decision was based on the fact that none appeared on behalf of the petitioner for the second consecutive occasion. The Court also noted that despite the Registry informing the petitioner's counsel about the listing of the case after remand by the Supreme Court, there was no appearance. Furthermore, no amendment application was filed to include a challenge to the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition. No specific issue was left undecided; 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 on the merits of the case but disposed of the petition as withdrawn with the stipulated liberty.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A. The operative direction was the dismissal of the current petition as withdrawn with the specified liberty.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 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 permitted to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the subsequent petition. The court's reasoning is based on the petitioner's explicit request for withdrawal and the associated liberty. No decision was made on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted.
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. This fresh petition would also allow the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning for this decision is not elaborated upon beyond the acceptance of the petitioner's request. The operative direction is the dismissal of the current petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted.
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 operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. No specific findings were made on the merits of any tax dispute, as the petition was withdrawn before any substantive adjudication.
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 submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel stated that a fresh petition, CWP-18744-2026, had been filed, which also challenges Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and requested to withdraw the present petition to pursue the new one. The court, in its oral order, dismissed the present petition as withdrawn, granting the liberty to the petitioner to pursue the other petition as prayed for. No decision on the merits of the original challenge was made.
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 of the petitioner's counsel. The court allowed the withdrawal of the petition. The petitioner was granted 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 judgment does not delve into the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in its order dated 24.08.2026, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, which includes the challenge to Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The operative direction is the dismissal of the present petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted. No specific finding on the merits of the challenge to Section 147A was made as the petition was withdrawn.
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 petition as withdrawn. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This liberty also extends to challenging Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the subsequent petition. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's request for withdrawal and the grant of the specified liberty. No decision was made on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the Civil Writ Petition. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Crucially, the liberty also extended to challenging Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the subsequent petition. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original petition or the validity of Section 147A. The decision is based solely on the petitioner's request for withdrawal and the granted liberty.
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 subsequent petition. The court's reasoning for granting this liberty is not explicitly detailed, but it implies a procedural concession to the petitioner. No specific findings were made on the merits of any underlying tax dispute, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with the specified liberty.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the 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 issues related to the Income Tax Act on merits. The decision was based solely on the petitioner's request for withdrawal and liberty.
The High Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court allowed the withdrawal with 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 present petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A, as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.
The High Court accepted the consensus arrived at between the parties. The assessment order dated 23.03.2026 was set aside. The respondent (Income Tax Officer) was granted liberty to pass a fresh assessment order, but only after considering the objections dated 26.04.2025 raised by the petitioner in response to the notice dated 31.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Act. The court found merit in the petitioner's submission regarding the violation of the principle of natural justice. The revenue acknowledged the issue and consented to a fresh assessment after due consideration of objections. The ratio is that an assessment order passed without considering the assessee's objections to a Section 148 notice violates natural justice and is liable to be quashed, with liberty to pass a fresh order after proper adjudication of objections.
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's decision was based on the petitioner's explicit request for withdrawal with these specific liberties. No decision was made on the merits of the original petition or the potential challenge to Section 147A. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the granted liberty.
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. This fresh petition would also allow the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's decision was based on the petitioner's expressed desire to withdraw and pursue the matter further with the stated liberty. No decision was made on the merits of the original petition or the potential challenge to Section 147A.
The High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not delve into the merits of any substantive issue as the petition was withdrawn at the outset. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition with the specified liberty.
The High Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Crucially, this liberty extended to challenging Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the subsequent filing. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A, as the petition was disposed of based on the withdrawal request. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the specified liberty granted.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal, considered the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition. Crucially, 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 subsequent petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. No decision was made on the merits of the original petition.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the 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 merits concerning the original petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.
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 also granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. No decision was made on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the 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 accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. No decision on the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A was made.
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, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The specific reasoning for granting liberty was not elaborated beyond acceding to the petitioner's prayer.