Wp/19269/2023 Of M/S Omr Investments Llp v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle -1(3)
High Court
21 Mar 2024 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Wp/19269/2023 Of M/S Omr Investments Llp v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle -1(3)
Date of order
21 Mar 2024
Assessment year(s)
2019-20
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/19269/2023 Of M/S Omr Investments Llp v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle -1(3), the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Accordingly, petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Digitally signedby VANDANA SLocation:HIGH COURTOFKARNATAKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR -WRIT PETITION NO.19269 OF 2023 (TIT)
BETWEEN:
M/S OMR INVESTMENTS LLP 1 FLOOR, EMBASSY POINT NO.150, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY D VIJAYAKUMAR S/O DHARMALINGAM GANDHIMANI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.
2.DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION 3(3) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.DILIP.M., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/148-1/2022-23/1051294041(1) DTD 25.03.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE AY 2019-20 AS TIME BARRED, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo seeking permission to withdraw the petition as the same has become infructuous.
2. The said memo is taken on record.
3. Accordingly, petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/- JUDGE
SV List No.: 3
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue