M/S HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) COMPANY PVT. LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/15957/2023HC DelhiDLHC01051956202303 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the notice dated 31.03.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of AY 2012-13, was beyond the period of limitation. This conclusion was based on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the same Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ojjus Medicare Private Limited: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4451, which had concluded a similar controversy in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the impugned notice was set aside. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press other reliefs sought in the petition. The petition was disposed of in terms of setting aside the notice, and any pending application was also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) COMPANY PVT. LTD., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.03.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The petitioner contended that the notice was beyond the period of limitation. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Delhi, and another authority. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner is seeking to impugn the aforementioned notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2012-13, is beyond the period of limitation? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The notice is beyond the period of limitation. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15957/2023 & CM APPL. 64236/2023 (Stay) M/S HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) COMPANY PVT. LTD.

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kishore Kamal & Ms. Ankita Prakash, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC, Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC & Mr. Anmol Jagga, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

O R D E R %

03.12.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter-alia, impugning a notice dated 31.03.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act), in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2012-13. It is the petitioner’s case that the said notice is beyond the period of limitation. Concededly, the said controversy stands concluded in favour of the petitioner, in view of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ojjus Medicare Private Limited: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4451. 2. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press other reliefs, as sought for, in the present petition. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 02:38:09

3.

Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act in respect of AY 2012-13 is set aside. 4. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application is also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J DECEMBER 03, 2024/at

Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 02:38:09

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →