120 120 120 120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB VINESH GUPTA VINESH GUPTA VINESH GUPTA VINESH GUPTA UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present : Mr. Puneet Kansal, (Through VC) Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondent **** DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL 1. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted through a judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 passed in Union of India and others. 2. In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in terms of Jyoti Sareen notice dated 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. 10.09 10.09 10.09 10.09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CWP CWP CWP CWP Date of Decision : Date of Decision : Date of Decision : Date of Decision : VINESH GUPTA VINESH GUPTA VINESH GUPTA VINESH GUPTA VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate, for the petitioner (Through VC) Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondent-revenue. **** DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral)))) Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner would itled to the same relief as has been granted through a judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP- Union of India and others. In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra), resulting in quashing of the impugned notice dated 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND HARYANA AND HARYANA AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CWP CWP CWP CWP----24572 24572 24572 24572----2024 2024 2024 2024 Date of Decision : Date of Decision : Date of Decision : Date of Decision : 10.09. 10.09. 10.09. 10.09.2026 2026 2026 2026 ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH for the petitioner. Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner would itled to the same relief as has been granted through a judgment of -15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in , resulting in quashing of the impugned notice dated 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. ((((DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner would itled to the same relief as has been granted through a judgment of Jyoti Sareen vs. In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in , resulting in quashing of the impugned notice dated 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.13 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document