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

PDF · subscribers
WP/19957/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01042531202527 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, in its order dated 17th October 2026, disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn. This decision was based on a memo filed by the petitioner's advocate seeking leave to withdraw the petition. The memo explicitly requested the court to take the memo on record and dismiss the petition as withdrawn, while leaving all contentions open to be urged before the Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings. The court acceded to this request, stating that in view of the memo filed, the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the challenge to the Section 148 notice.

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 ITBA/AST/S/148/2024-25/1075245711(1), issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(a1) Bangalore, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This notice pertained to the assessment year 2018-19. The respondents were the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation). The matter came up for orders before Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19, is liable to be quashed? The petitioner (Lenovo Global Technology (India) Private Limited) sought to quash the Section 148 notice. The grounds for challenge were not elaborated in the provided judgment excerpt. The revenue (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Director General of Income Tax (Investigation)) was represented by counsel. No specific arguments for either side were recorded in the judgment, as the matter was disposed of based on a withdrawal memo.

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 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19957 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 SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(a1) BANGALORE CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.

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

2.

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-A) QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 29.03.2025 BEARING NO. ITBA/AST/S/148/2024-25/1075245711(1)(ANNEXURE - A) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the petition. The memo reads as under:

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

HC-KAR 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.”

In view of the memo filed, the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA Ct:sr

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →