The Court allowed a writ petition challenging an income tax notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relying on a prior judgment in Jyoti Sareen to quash the proceedings.
Quashing of the impugned notice dated 25.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP-14388-2025 (O&M)
136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-14388-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2026
Shruti Parmar
...Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH
Present: Ms. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Kavita, Advocate for the respondent(s)-revenue.
DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(Oral)
(DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE
(SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE
| 11.09.2026 Harish Kumar |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether speaking / reasoned: |
Yes | No | |
| Whether Reportable : | Yes | No |
HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.12 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-1-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition should be allowed based on the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen versus Union of India to quash the impugned notice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of IndiaFollowed¶13
CWP-15791-2024 Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shruti Parmar
Income Tax Officer
DEEPAK SIBAL
SUNISH BINDLISH
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
