OOREDOO Q P S C vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/1593/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01002639202505 February 2025Bench: S.G.PANDIT5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the prayer of the petitioner in terms of the decision in Vodafone Idea Ltd. vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax (International Taxation). Consequently, the assessment order dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure-A), and the penalty and demand notices dated 18.11.2021 and 19.11.2021 (Annexures-B, C, and D) were quashed. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file a Review Petition based on the outcome of the Review Petition pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was decided based on precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ooredoo Q.P.S.C. (formerly Qtel), filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the final assessment order dated November 18, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-2(2) under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 and 144C for Assessment Year 2012-13. The petition also challenged penalty notices issued under Section 274 and 271(1)(b) and (c), and a demand notice. The dispute pertains to interconnect usage charges. Both parties agreed that the issues raised were covered by a previous decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court in Vodafone Idea Ltd. vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 18.11.2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 and 144C for AY 2012-13, and the consequential penalty and demand notices, are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of relevant assessment and penalty provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The issues are covered by the Division Bench decision in Vodafone Idea Ltd. vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax (International Taxation), and therefore, the assessment order and notices should be quashed. Revenue's contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the matter is covered by the Vodafone Idea Ltd. decision. However, they noted that the decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, which was relied upon by the Division Bench, has a Review Petition pending before the Supreme Court. The Revenue sought liberty to file a review if their review petition before the Apex Court is successful.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144C,Section 274,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5222 WP No. 1593 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1593 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

OOREDOO Q.P.S.C, M/S OOREDOO QATAR (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. QTEL), C/O TAX COMPAAS, OFFICE AT 56/1, FIRST FLOOR, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE -560 004, KARNATAKA. (AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. MUKESH SHAH, S/O ROSHANLAL SHAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS) REGISTERED AS PUBLIC JOINT STOCK COMPANY. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. GEETHA RANI K, ADVOCATE AND SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR J. JAIN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2), 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80FT ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE AND SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5222 WP No. 1593 of 2025

OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF THE CERTIORARI OR OTHER WISE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 18.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) RWS 147RWS 144C FOR AY 2012-13 ENCLOSED IN ANNX-A AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel Sri.Dilip.M., accepts notice for the respondent.

2.

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Narendra Kumar.J., for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Dilip.M., for respondent/Revenue. Perused the writ petition papers.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the final assessment order passed under Sections 143(3), 147 and 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘1961 Act’) for the assessment year 2012-13 as well as penalty notices issued

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5222 WP No. 1593 of 2025

under Section 274 and 271(1)(b) and (c) and demand notice.

4.

Learned counsel would submit that the subject matter of the writ petition as well as the order passed relates to interconnect usage charges. It is submitted by both the learned counsel that the issues raised in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in VODAFONE IDEA LTD., VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)1.

5.

Learned counsel Sri.Dilip.M., appearing for respondent would only submit that the Division Bench of this Court placed reliance on the decision of the ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER2 and it is submitted that against the decision in ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF

1 (2023) 152 taxmann.com 575 (Karnataka) 2 (2022) 3 SCC 321

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5222 WP No. 1593 of 2025

EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED (supra), Revenue has filed Review Petition. Therefore, he seeks liberty to file review, if they succeed in the Review Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

6.

Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties is considered carefully and on going through the pleadings and the decisions on which, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on reliance i.e., VODAFONE IDEA LTD., (supra), I am of the view that the prayer of the petitioner needs to be allowed in terms of the decision of the VODAFONE IDEA LTD., (supra).

7.

Accordingly, Annexure-A bearing No. ITBA/AST/ M/147/2021-22/1037076202(1) dated 18.11.2021; Annexure-B dated 18.11.2021; Annexure-C bearing No. DIN:ITBA/PNL/S271(1)(b)/2021-22/1037076605(1) dated 19.11.2021 and Annexure-D bearing No.ITBA/PNL/S 271(1)(c)/2021-22/1037076622(1) dated 19.11.2021 are quashed.

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5222 WP No. 1593 of 2025

8.

Liberty is reserved to the Revenue to file Review Petition based on the outcome of the Review Petition pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED (supra).

9.

With the above, writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 CT: BHK

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →