Allowed¶54

Motorla Mobility India Priate Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2025WP/16478/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd v. DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Karnataka HC, W.P. No. 16478/2025 (T-RES), decided 31.10.2025 by S.R. Krishna Kumar J. Notice u/S 148 for AY 2017-18 quashed in terms of Ramachandra Reddy Ravi Kumar case; liberty reserved to revenue to seek revival subject to pending Apex Court matters.

What did the court decide?

Notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 quashed. ¶54

Motorla Mobility India Priate Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44123 WP No. 16478 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.16478 OF 2025 (T-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MOTOROLA MOBILITY INDIA PRIATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO.5, BAGMANE TECH PARK, NO.66/L, 5^TH FLOOR, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 093. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. PRASHANT HEGDE.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NIRMAL MATHEW, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) – BANGALORE CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TP 2(1)(1)- BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 095

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:44123 WP No. 16478 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶28

“a) Declaring that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18 are barred by limitation;

¶29

b) Quashing the notice dated 30.03.2024 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2023-24/1063727465(1) (AnnexureD) issued by the 1^st Respondent under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18; and

¶30

c) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.”

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶32

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramachandra Reddy Ravi Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:44123 WP No. 16478 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Income-tax – W.P.No.17352/2022 and connected matters -

¶37

dated 28.08.2025 , in order to contend that the present petition deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of the said order.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

¶40

Ramachandra Reddy Ravi Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - W.P.No.17352/2022 and connected matters -

¶41

dated 28.08.2025, the operative portion of which reads as under:

¶42

"13. I, therefore, pass the following:

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

(i) The impugned show cause notices issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside the scope of Section 151-A of the Act stand obliterated. All further proceedings initiated thereto, challenged in these cases would stand quashed.

¶45

(ii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents - revenue to revive all these petitions in the event the Apex Court

¶46

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44123 WP No. 16478 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

would hold in favour of the Revenue in the pending before it.

¶49

(iii) With the aforesaid liberty and to the aforesaid extent, the petitions are allowed.

¶50

(iv) Contentions of both the parties except the one noted hereinabove, shall remain open to be considered in the event revival of these petitions would become necessary."

¶51

The aforesaid order is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and consequently, the present petition also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ramachandra Reddy's case supra .

¶52

In the result, I pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) The petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramachandra Reddy Ravi Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - W.P.No.17352/2022 and connected matters - dated 28.08.2025.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:44123 WP No. 16478 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

(ii) The impugned notice and consequential orders, notices etc., at Annexure-D dated 30.03.2024 is hereby quashed.

¶59

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents - Revenue to seek revival of this petition, subsequent to disposal of the matters pending before the Apex Court and all rival contentions between the parties in this regard are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶60

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶61

¶62

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 82

Motorla Mobility India Priate Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Motorla Mobility India Priate Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kempaiah Muniraju Vs National E-Assessment Centre

M/S Orkla India Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax.

Ramakrishna Tapovan Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac)

M/S Manidhari Trading Company Vs State of Karnataka

M/S M K Agrotech Private Limited Vs Union of India

M/S Mk Agrotech Private Limited Vs Union of India