Emids Technologies Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1)

EMIDS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED 18/18/17/18/12, RUPENA AGRAHARA, BEGUR HOBLI, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 068. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT- FINANCE MR. BALASUBRAMANIAN VISWANATHAN.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR

¶12

SRI. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE))

¶13

AND:

¶14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1) 2^ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,

¶15

80 FEET ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,

¶16

BENGALURU – 560 095.

¶17

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

¶18

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU - 1 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 29.03.2024 (ANNEXURE-D) BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A/202324/1063615367(1) PASSED BY THE R-2 UNDER SEC 148A(d) OF THE IT ACT FOR THE AY 2017-18.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

2 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:46039 WP No. 17301 of 2024

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶29

“ (i) Quashing the order dated; 29 March 2024 (Annexure-D) bearing DIN ITBA/AST/F//148A/202324/1063615367(1) passed by the 1^st Respondent under Section 148A(d) of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18;

¶30

(ii) Quashing the notice dated 29 March 2024 (Annexure-E) bearing DIN

¶31

ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2023/1063618416(1) issued by the 1^st Respondent under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18;

¶32

(iii) Quashing the notice dated 1 March 2024 (Annexure-B) bearing DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/202324/1061846409(1) issued by the 1^st Respondent under Section 148A(b) of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18; and

¶33

(iv) 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.”

¶34

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

¶35

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned

¶36

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46039 WP No. 17301 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order of a coordinate 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 , in order to contend that the present petition deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of the said order.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

"13. I, therefore, pass the following:

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

(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

¶46

4 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:46039 WP No. 17301 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

proceedings initiated thereto, challenged in these cases would stand quashed.

¶50

(ii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents - revenue to revive all these petitions in the event the Apex Court would hold in favour of the Revenue in the pending before it.

¶51

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

¶52

(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."

¶53

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 .

¶54

In the result, I pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(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 -

¶57

5 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:46039 WP No. 17301 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

W.P.No.17352/2022 and connected matters -

¶61

dated 28.08.2025.

¶62

(ii) The impugned show cause notices and consequential orders, notices etc., at Annexures- B, D and E dated 01.03.2024, 29.03.2024 and 29.03.2024 respectively are hereby quashed.

¶63

(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.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶66

Srl.

Emids Technologies Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Emids Technologies Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1)

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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaveri Vanita Sevashrama Vs the Income Tax Officer

Sagar Rathi Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Needs Manpower Support Services Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S. Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India

Sri. Siddamallappa Vs the Assessment Officer

M/S. Paix Surveillance Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (in-Situ)