PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 187 / 2023HC Delhi28 March 20233 pages
For Petitioner: PUNEET RAI
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the issues raised in the appeals were likely covered by a Supreme Court judgment. The court decided to list the appeals for further hearing.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the ITAT's order which ruled in favour of the assessee. The appeals were filed with significant delays, which the High Court condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal erred in deleting additions related to disallowance under Section 80IA and Section 40(a)(i) concerning payments made without TDS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IA,Section 40(a)(i),Section 194J,Section 9(1)(vi),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

$~55 to 57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 186/2023 + ITA 187/2023 + ITA 188/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 ..... Appellant

Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr Standing Counsel.

versus

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD...... Respondent

Through: Mr Rajeev Mishra, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

28.03.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.15085/2023 in ITA 186/2023[Applications filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 288 days in re- filing the appeal] CM Appl.15086/2023 in ITA 187/2023 [Applications filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 285 days in re- filing the appeal] CM Appl.15087/2023 in ITA 188/2023 [Applications filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 286 days in re- filing the appeal]

1.

These are the applications filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, the period of delay involved in the above-captioned appeals is 288 days [ITA 186/2023], 285 days [ITA 187/2023] and 286 days [ITA 188/2023]. ITA 186-188/2023

1/3 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 13:11:26

3.

Mr Rajeev Mishra, who appears on behalf of the non- application/respondent, does not oppose the prayer made in the applications. 4. The delay is, accordingly, condoned. The applications are disposed of. ITA 186/2023 ITA 187/2023 ITA 188/2023 5. These appeals concern Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11 [ITA 186/2023], 2015-16 [ITA 187/2023] and 2013-14 [ITA 188/2023]. 6. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, the “Tribunal”], via the common impugned order dated 20.10.2021, has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee on issues which arise for consideration before us. 6.1 The Tribunal, it appears, has relied upon its own judgment rendered in AY 2011-12. 7. We are informed by Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] has been lodged with this Court challenging the Tribunal's order concerning AY 2011-12. 7.1 We are told by Mr Rai that in that case, Diary no.1190971 has been allocated by the Registry. 8. There are only two issues on which these appeals founded: (i) First, whether the Tribunal has erred in deleting the additions amounting to Rs.11,14,74,058/-, on account of disallowance under Section 80IA of the Act?

ITA 186-188/2023

2/3 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 13:11:26

(ii) Second, whether the Tribunal has committed an error in deleting the additions amounting to Rs.72,09,30,047/-, on account of disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act? 9. The disallowance has been made as the respondent /assessee has not deducted tax at source under Section 194J of the Act. 10. According to the AO, the payments made to the respondent/assessee were royalty in terms of Explanation appended to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 11. Prima facie, according to us, this issue is covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr, (2022) 3 SCC 321. 12. Since Mr Rai says that the appeal for AY 2011-12 is likely to be listed shortly, list the above-captioned appeals on 19.05.2023.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

MARCH 28, 2023/pmc

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 186-188/2023

3/3

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 13:11:26

More judgments on Section 80IA

All 1,796 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →