INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the impugned order and notices were issued against a non-existing company. Since the facts presented by the petitioner regarding the merger and the non-existence of the entity against whom the proceedings were initiated were not disputed by the respondents, the High Court found the order and notices to be liable to be set aside. The Court quashed the notice dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure-H), the assessment order dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure-K), and the notice dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure-M) issued by Respondent No. 1. However, the Court clarified that this setting aside would not prevent the respondents from initiating appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Intel Technology India Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order and notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 1) under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The petitioner stated that Intel Mobile Communications India Private Limited merged with it effective November 29, 2018, as per orders from the National Company Law Tribunal. The petitioner had already paid income tax for the merged entity for AY 2018-19. Despite this, the respondents issued notices and an order against Intel Mobile Communications India Private Limited, which the petitioner argued is a non-existing entity. The respondents did not dispute these facts.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice dated 29.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-2019 are liable to be quashed, considering the assessee entity is non-existent due to a merger. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order and notices were issued against Intel Mobile Communications India Private Limited, a non-existing entity after its merger with the petitioner. The petitioner had also paid the income tax for the merged entity for the relevant assessment year. Revenue's Contention: The judgment notes that the respondents did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.31045 OF 2024 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING OFFICE AT 23-56P, DEVERABEESANAHALLI VARTHUR HOBLI, OUTER RING ROAD, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU-560 103, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SAMPRATHI RADHAKRISHNA SUCHITRA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI T. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED BEARING NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2024-25/1068141042(1) (ANNEXURE-K) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 148A(D) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-2019 AND QUASH THE NOTICE DATED BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2024-25/1068141137(1) (ANNEXURE- M) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-2019, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
A company in the name and style of Intel Mobile Communications India Private Limited got merged with the petitioner/company with effect from 29.11.2018 by an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, in C.P (CAA) No.40/BB/2018 and C.P. (CAA) No.41/BB/2018. The aforementioned fact of merger has been intimated to the respondents. It is further submitted that the petitioner/company has paid the income tax pertaining to the said Intel Mobile Communications India Private Limited for the assessment
year 2018-19. However, the respondents have issued the notice dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure-H) and have initiated proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the order dated (Annexure-K) against the Intel Mobile Communications India Private Limited, which is a non- existing entity, and also they have issued the notice dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure-M). Hence, the present writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the same. 2. The aforementioned facts are not disputed by the respondents. As the impugned order and the notices have been issued against a non-existing company, the same are liable to be set aside. 3. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned notice dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure-H) issued by respondent no.1, the assessment order dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure- K) passed by respondent no.1 and the notice dated 29.08.2024 issued by respondent no.1 (Annexure-M) are set aside;
(ii) However, it is hereby clarified that setting aside of the aforementioned orders does not come in the way of the respondents initiating appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law; (iii) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE
hkh.
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Surveillance System, Sambalpur vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST Odisha , CT And GST Commissionerate , Cuttack OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Himansu Palei vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST CBIC Keonjhar Division, KeonjharOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Access Worldwide Cargo vs. The Commissioner Of CustomsKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Greenlam Industries LTD And Another vs. The UOI And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026