PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 vs. M/S BHARTI HEXACOM LTD

Notice. Although the respondent is stated to have been placed on advance notice, none has appeared on its behalf when the matter was called. 2. Consequently, let learned counsel appearing for the appellant take steps for service upon the said respondent through all permissible modes including via approved courier service. 3. We take note of the disclosures which are made by Mr. Meharchandani, learned counsel for the appellant from a chart which has been submitted for our consideration and on the basis of which it is contended that the additions on account of amortization of variable licence fee under Section 35AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] would stand concluded in favour of the Revenue in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1340]. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 13:11:07

Similarly, insofar as the question of subscriber verification penalty is concerned, Mr. Meharchandani, learned counsel for the appellant lays reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [(2022) 7 SCC 98] and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Prakash Chand Lunia and Anr. [(2023) 454 ITR 61] to contend that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has taken an extremely narrow and pedantic view. 5. Proceeding further to the question of additions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, it is pointed out that the Revenue would place its case on the judgment rendered by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Idea Cellular Ltd. [2010 SCC OnLine Del 757]. 6. In view of the above, let the appeal be called again on 01.04.2024.