LENOVO GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/19831/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01042533202527 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court accepted the memo filed by the petitioner's counsel seeking withdrawal of the petition. The Court ordered that the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. The memo explicitly stated that all contentions were left open to be urged before the Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings, in the interests of justice and equity. Therefore, the High Court did not decide on the merits of the challenge to the Section 148 notice. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lenovo Global Technology (India) Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition challenged a notice dated 29.03.2025, bearing reference number ITBA/AST/S/148/2024-25/1075245625(1), issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1) Bangalore. This notice was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2021-22. The respondents were the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central). The matter came before Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad for orders.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the notice dated 29.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2021-22, should be quashed. The petitioner sought to quash this notice. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner or the revenue regarding the validity of the notice or the reassessment proceedings. The petitioner's counsel filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19831 OF 2025 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

LENOVO GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LEVEL 2 RBD ICON DODDENAKUNDI VILLAGE, MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, MARATHAHALLI POST, K R PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE 560037.

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. PRASHANT HEGDE

…PETITIONER (BY MS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HC-KAR AND:

1.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) BANGALORE CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.

2.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y V RAVIRAJ A/W SRI. M. DILIP., AND SRI. VINAYAKA S PANDIT., ADVOCATES)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 29.03.2025 BEARING NO. ITBA/AST/S/148/2024-25/1075245625(1) (ANNEXURE A) ISSUED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD HC-KAR ORAL ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the petition which reads as under.

“The Advocate for the Petitioner seeks leave of this Hon’ble Court to withdraw the above petition.

Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take the present memo on record and dismiss the above petition as withdrawn, leaving all contentions open to be urged before the Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings, in the interests of justice and equity.”

The memo is accepted and the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →