M/S,VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITTA/577/2018HC TelanganaHBHC01092322201814 February 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the singular point involved in the appeal is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court noted that the assessee's stand was that the activity in question is a sale, while the revenue treated it as commission. Since the Supreme Court has decided this point in favour of assessees, the impugned order of the ITAT is set aside. The appeal is allowed, and no costs are awarded. Any pending interlocutory applications are also closed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vodafone Idea Limited (formerly Idea Cellular Limited), filed an appeal before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. The appeal was against the order dated 20-07-2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench. The ITAT's order was in relation to ITA No. 1446/Hyd/2015 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. This order was preferred against an order dated 30-10-2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad, which in turn was against the assessment order dated 09-03-2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), TDS Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. The dispute concerns the classification of an activity as either a sale or commission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the activity in question is to be treated as a sale or as commission, which is a question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee contended that the activity in question is a sale, and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessee argued that this point is no longer res integra and has been finally decided by the Supreme Court in favour of assessees, thus the impugned order should be set aside. The Revenue's counsel fairly submitted that the singular point involved is indeed covered by the recent judgment in Bharati Cellular Ltd.'s case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

260(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

134471 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DA? OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 577 OF 2018 Appeal filed under Section 260(4) of the lncome-Tax Act, against the order dated. 20-07-2018 passed in lTA.No. 1446tHydt2015 (Assessment year 2015_16) on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench ,8,, Hyderabad preferred against the Order dated: 30-10-20i5 passed in ITA No.OS14/C|I(A)_ 8lHydl2015-16 on the file of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)_g, Hyderabad preferred against the Assessment order dated. 09-03-2015 passed in TAN/PAN No. HYD|009'l6G/AAACB2100P on the file of the Assistant commissioner of lncome Tax(TDS), TDS Circte i (1), Hyderabad. Between: M/s.Vodafone ldea Limited, (Formerly known as M/s. ldea cellular limited) 5-9-62, Khan Lateef khan Estate, Fateh Maiden Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-soo OO1, Telangana AND ...APPELLANT The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, TDS Circle, ward-1(.1), Hyderabad, 4th floor, B Block, lncome Tax Towers, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad-s00 004, Telangana ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI A. RAMA KRISHNA REDDy,Standing Counsel FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court delivered the following: JUGDMENT

"7 THE HONOT]RABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA ITTA No.577 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the appellant and lvlr. A.Rama Krishna Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for tht: lncome Tax Department for the respondent Perused the record. 2. With the consent, finally heard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharali Cellular Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Iarl submits that singular point involved in this matter is no more res integra and curtains are .ilnally drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case. It is submitted that the stand of the petitioner was the activity in questi,rn is a sale, whereas the respondents are treating it to be commlst;ton Since, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has I , '(2024) 462 rTRrt47 (SC) -/ I

2 decided the aforesaid point in favour of assessees, the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that singular point above indeed covered by the recent judgment in Bharati Cellular Ltils case supra. 5. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. sd/- A'V.S.S.C,S.M. SARMA ol T REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To, 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderaba-d Bench '8" Hyderabad ,. il; C;;issionei bt tncome tax (Appeals)-8 Hvderabad 3. The Assistant Commissil-n;t-oi l;";;; Tax(TDS)' TDS Circle 1(1)' Hvderabad. a 61"""#iJ sri A V A Siva Kartikeva' Advocate [oPt lcl 5. one CC to SriA Rama K;Li';J;i;i''iianoins counsel for the lncome Tax Department [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies Plp/ghw

HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.577 of 2018 ALLOWING THE APPEAL. o 26 ilAB 2m z C. \ -. r.l'.; t'l ^,€ J * * ))I]s PAT \e5 ,

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →