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

PDF · subscribers
WP/20105/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01042538202527 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 writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The court explicitly noted that all contentions were left open to be urged before the Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings, in the interests of justice and equity. No decision was made on the merits of the challenge to the Section 148 notice.

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 March 29, 2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1) 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 petitioner sought to quash the Section 148 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 2018-19 is liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued for the quashing of the notice. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the petitioner's counsel filed a memo seeking to withdraw the petition. The memo explicitly stated that the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition and requested that it be dismissed as withdrawn, leaving all contentions open to be urged before the Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings.

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. 20105 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

MOTOROLA MOBILITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO.5, BAGMANE TECH PARK NO.66/L, 5TH FLOOR, C V RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560093 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, 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, BENGALURU-560001.

2.

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HC-KAR CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y V RAVIRAJ A/W SRI. M. DILIP., AND SRI. VINAYAKA S PADIT., 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/148/2024-25/1075245804(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 B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

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

HC-KAR “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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →