IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 155 CWP-26893-2026 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 SAB INDUSTRIES LTD. ....Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate and Mr. Aditya Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Kavita, Advocate for the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department. ***** DEEPAK SIBAL, J (ORAL) 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 CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. 2. In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in terms of Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra), resulting in quashing of the impugned notice dated 11.06.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) 10.09.2026 JUDGE D.Bansal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DINESH BANSAL 2026.09.11 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 155 CWP-26893-2026 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 SAB INDUSTRIES LTD. ....Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate and Mr. Aditya Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Kavita, Advocate for the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department. ***** DEEPAK SIBAL, J (ORAL) 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 CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. 2. In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in terms of Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra), resulting in quashing of the impugned notice dated 11.06.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) 10.09.2026 JUDGE D.Bansal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DINESH BANSAL 2026.09.11 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh