Single judge oral order allowing the writ petition on consensus and by reference to a prior judgment quashing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued to the petitioner.
Quashing of the notice dated 1.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act alongwith 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.
210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-28526-2024 Date of Decision : 11.09.2026
USHA RANI
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH
Present : M r. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for t h e petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standin g Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C ounsel Ms. Kavita, Advocate and Ms. Arushi Bansal, Advocate for the respondents.
DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(Oral)
(DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE
11.09.2026 (SUNISH BINDLISH) Vandana yadav JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Y e s/No Whether Reportable. : Y e s/No
VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief granted in CWP-15791-2024.
Whether the notice dated 1.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and othersFollowed¶1
CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Usha Rani
Income Tax Officer
Others
Deeppak Sibal
Sunish Bindlish
Vandana Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
