M/S BORQS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. THE ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/18324/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01037143202130 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryQuashed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the impugned penalty order dated 15.09.2021 and the impugned demand notice dated 15.09.2021. This decision was made in view of the subsequent orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 25.10.2021, the assessment order dated 21.12.2024, and the subsequent penalty order dated 26.06.2025. The Court noted that these subsequent orders were placed on record by the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT or the subsequent assessment and penalty orders were not detailed in this judgment, but their existence was the basis for quashing the impugned orders. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Borqs Software Solutions Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a penalty order passed by the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Center, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The penalty order was dated 15.09.2021. The petitioner also sought to quash a demand notice issued under Section 156 dated 15.09.2021. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed a memo along with copies of subsequent orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 25.10.2021, an assessment order dated 21.12.2024, and a further penalty order dated 26.06.2025. The High Court took these subsequent orders on record.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned penalty order passed by the revenue under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-17 is liable to be quashed. The petitioner sought to quash the penalty order. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the impugned demand notice issued by the revenue under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-17 is liable to be quashed. The petitioner sought to quash the demand notice. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43648 WP No. 18324 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.18324 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

M/S BORQS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD NO.3 PRESTIGE ALKAREEM GROUND FLOOR EDWARD ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052 (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI HAREESH RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O SRI G A RAMANNA.) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TATA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY /

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX /

INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER (REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1) (2) BMTC BUILDING 80 FT ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALUR – 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V., ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERIORARI OR OTHERWISE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 271(1)(c) DATED 15.09.2021 FOR AY 2016-17 ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A.

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43648 WP No. 18324 of 2021

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“(A) Quash as far as the petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari or otherwise, the impugned Penalty Order passed by the First Respondent under Section 271(1)(c) bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(C)/2021-22/1035600154(1) dated 15.09.2021 for AY 2016-17 enclosed as Annexure-A.

(B) Quash as far as the petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari or otherwise, the impugned demand notice issued by the First Respondent under Section 156 bearing No.ITBA/PNL/S/156/2021-22/1035600206(1) dated 15.09.2021 for AY 2016-17, enclosed as Annexure-B.

(c) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble High Court may think fit including the costs of this writ petition.”

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo along with copies of the orders passed by the ITAT dated 25.10.2021, Assessment order dated 21.12.2024 and subsequent penalty order dated 26.06.2025. The said memo and aforesaid orders are placed on record.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43648 WP No. 18324 of 2021

3.

In view of the above orders, petition stands disposed of.

4.

The impugned Penalty order at Annexure – A dated 15.09.2021 and impugned Demand notice at Annexure – D dated 02.08.2021 are hereby quashed in view of orders passed by the ITAT referred to supra.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →