MOTOROLA MOBILITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/20070/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01042539202527 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka accepted the memo filed by the petitioner's counsel seeking withdrawal of the petition. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The memo explicitly stated that all contentions were to be left open to be urged before the Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings, in the interests of justice and equity. Therefore, the Court did not decide on the merits of the challenge to the Section 148 notice. No specific finding was made on the validity of the notice, and no ratio decidendi was established on the substantive issues that might have arisen had the petition proceeded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Motorola Mobility India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a notice dated 29.03.2025, 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 petitioner sought to quash the aforementioned notice. The matter came up for orders before the High Court.

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 2021-22, is liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued for the quashing of the notice. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue. However, 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. 20070 OF 2025 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

MOTOROLA MOBILITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO 05, BAGMANE TECH PARK NO 66/L, 5TH FLOOR, C V RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560093 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, HEAD TEXATION MR PRASHANT HEGDE.

…PETITIONER

(BY MS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

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

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HC-KAR BENGALURU - 560001.

2.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX (CENTRAL) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

…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/148/2024-25/1075247908(1)(ANNEXURE A) ISSUED BY THE 1ST 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 →